Data mining and analysis system and method for legal documents

ABSTRACT

Systems, methods, and computer program methods for assessing a validity or invalidity of a patent are described. A plurality of legal documents associated with a plurality of legal cases can be received, where at least one of the plurality of legal cases can be associated with a legal proceeding. The legal proceeding can be associated with a determination of a validity or invalidity of a patent. The patent can include at least one claim. The plurality of legal documents can be stored in one or more databases. One or more predetermined patterns can be applied to the plurality of legal documents to identify reference data. The reference data can be analyzed to develop one or more analytical or statistical models. The validity or invalidity of the patent can be assessed based on the one or more analytical or statistical models.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. ProvisionalApplication Ser. No. 62/047,059 titled “Data Mining and Analysis Systemand Method for Legal Documents,” filed on Sep. 7, 2014, and U.S.Provisional Application Ser. No. 62/114,572 titled “Data Mining andAnalysis System and Method for Legal Documents,” filed on Feb. 10, 2015,the disclosure of each of which is incorporated herein by reference inits entirety.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The subject matter of this application is generally related to datamining and analysis systems, and more specifically, to data mining andanalysis in the context of legal documents.

BACKGROUND

Data mining refers in general to data-driven approaches for extractinghidden information from input data. The extracted information depends ona type of data mining and is put together in data mining models. Thismodel information can be further analyzed or verified against furtherprocess information.

Data mining techniques typically need to consider how to effectivelyprocess large amounts of data. Consider manufacturing of products as anexample. There, the input data can include various pieces of datarelating to origin and features of components. The aim of data mining inthe context of manufacturing can be to resolve problems relating toquality analysis and quality assurance. Data mining can be used, forexample, for root cause analysis, for early warning systems within themanufacture plant, and for reducing warranty claims.

As another example, data mining can be used for intrusion detection,system monitoring, and problem analyses. Data mining has also variousother uses, for example, in retail and services, where typical customerbehavior can be analyzed, in medicine and life sciences for findingcausal relations in clinical studies.

SUMMARY

Systems, methods, and computer program methods for assessing a validityor invalidity of a patent are described.

In some implementations, a plurality of legal documents associated witha plurality of legal cases can be received, where at least one of theplurality of legal cases can be associated with a legal proceeding. Insome implementations, the legal proceeding can be associated with adetermination of a validity or invalidity of a patent. The patentcontains at least one claim. The plurality of legal documents can bestored in one or more databases. One or more predetermined patterns canbe applied to the plurality of legal documents to identify referencedata. The reference data can be analyzed to develop one or moreanalytical or statistical models, and each analytical or statisticalmodel can pertain to a different statistic associated with a differentattribute of the plurality of the legal documents. The validity orinvalidity of the patent can be assessed based on the one or moreanalytical or statistical models. The assessment of the validity orinvalidity of the patent can be displayed to one or more users.

In some implementations, a system can be provided that includes a datamining module and a data system module. In some implementations, thedata mining module is configured to: receive a plurality of legaldocuments associated with a plurality of legal cases, where at least oneof the plurality of legal cases is associated with a legal proceeding,the legal proceeding associated with a determination of a validity orinvalidity of a patent, the patent containing at least one claim; storethe plurality of legal documents in one or more databases; and apply oneor more predetermined patterns to the plurality of legal documents toidentify reference data. In some implementations, t data analysis moduleis configured to: analyze the reference data to develop one or moreanalytical models, each analytical model pertaining to a differentanalytics parameter associated with a different attribute of theplurality of the legal documents; assess the validity or invalidity ofthe patent based on the one or more analytical models; and display theassessment of the validity or invalidity of the patent to one or moreusers.

The details of one or more implementations of the subject matterdescribed herein are set forth in the accompanying drawings and thedescription below. Other features, objects, and advantages of thesubject matter described herein will be apparent from the descriptionand drawings, and from the claims.

DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows an example of a data management system.

FIG. 2 shows an example structure of the data mining/analysis system.

FIG. 3 shows an example of additional components of a data analysissystem.

FIG. 4 show an example site map for displaying the assessment of thevalidity or invalidity of a patent to one or more users via a “Parties”category.

FIG. 5 show an example site map for displaying the assessment of thevalidity or invalidity of a patent to one or more users via a “LawFirm/Counsel” category.

FIG. 6 show an example site map for displaying the assessment of thevalidity or invalidity of a patent to one or more users via a “Judges”category.

FIG. 7 show an example site map for displaying the assessment of thevalidity or invalidity of a patent to one or more users via a “Patent”category.

FIG. 8 shows an example of a process for assessing validity orinvalidity of a patent based on one or more analytical or statisticalmodels.

FIG. 9 shows an example of a computing device and a mobile computingdevice that can be used to implement the subject matter describedherein.

FIG. 10A shows an example dashboard displaying a listing of proposedactionable tasks for a petitioner.

FIG. 10B shows a dropdown menu containing a listing of proposedactionable tasks in the dashboard shown in FIG. 10A.

FIG. 10C shows a user input field populating a listing of proposedactionable tasks in the dashboard shown in FIG. 10A.

FIG. 10D shows an example dashboard displaying a listing of proposedactionable tasks for a patent owner.

FIG. 11 show an example site map for displaying the assessment of thevalidity or invalidity of a patent to one or more users via a “New CaseAnalysis” category.

FIG. 12 is an example screenshot of the “New Case Analysis” category.

FIG. 13 is an example screenshot of an analysis page.

FIG. 14 is an example screenshot of a spider graph generated based onpatent data and global data.

FIG. 15 shows an example screenshot of a rating chart.

FIG. 16 is a matrix of an example list of validity strength ratings thatcan be determined by the data analysis system.

FIG. 17A is a screenshot displaying the counsel record associated with apetitioner.

FIG. 17B is a screenshot displaying the counsel record associated with apatent owner.

FIG. 18A is an example screenshot of “Parties” section viewed as aPetitioner.

FIG. 18B is an example screenshot of “Parties” section viewed as aPatent Owner.

FIG. 19A is an example screenshot of “Legal Counsel” section viewed as aPetitioner.

FIG. 19B is an example screenshot of “Legal Counsel” section viewed as aPatent Owner.

FIG. 20 is an example screenshot of the “Patent” section.

FIG. 21A is an example screenshot of a listing of prior art references.

FIG. 21B is an example screenshot of a listing of potential prior artreferences.

FIG. 22 is an example of a screenshot of topology analytics.

FIG. 23 shows an example of a process for assessing validity orinvalidity of a patent based on one or more analytical models.

Like reference symbols in the various drawings indicate like elements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION System Overview

With the new institution of post-grant proceedings designed to allowaccused infringers and third parties alike to challenge granted patentsin a trial proceeding before the PTAB, legal counsel find themselves ina unique junction with more client opportunities but also with a newtrial process and unpredictable patent judges.

The system and method as described herein enable law firms, practicingattorneys, and other legal entities to capitalize on this opportunity byproviding actionable data intelligence via natural language processing,machine learning of incoming documents, and data mining of relatedassets. By continuously drawing on statistical insights using the systemand method described herein, users (e.g., law firms, practicingattorneys, and other legal entities) are able to, among other things,conveniently review a judge's ruling trends, determine the potentialcase-dispositive impact of a motion or amendment, understand how thenuances of various rulings and procedures have boarder implications, andforecast with reasonable accuracy the probability that the Patent Trialand Appeal Board (hereinafter, the “PTAB” or “Board”) of the U.S. Patent& Trademark Office (hereinafter, “USPTO” or “Patent Office”) willultimately grant review to a particular claim or affirm or cancel aparticular claim of a patent.

At a high level, data analytical models can be generated based on one ormore data analysis algorithms. Initially, the data analytical models canbe “untrained”, and subsequently “trained” by processing training andpredictive data and generating information that defines the models. Thedata analytical models can then be deployed to provide predictions offuture outcomes and actionable recommendations based on past rulings. Inso doing, the system and method as described herein can give users fullvisibility to the case landscape, including rulings of other patentsinvolved in similar technology, prior track records of designatedjudges, and case portfolios of competing law firms before the PTAB indetermining how the Board will likely treat a particular patent that isor will be undergoing post-grant or inter partes review.

One or more problems can be addressed using the subject matter describedherein. For example, for small and large businesses, innovation ispriceless, and the ability to safeguard original ideas can determine thesurvival of a company. To protect and defend a patent holder'sintellectual property (IP) from patent infringers and from costlytrials, legal departments must find the most effective path toresolution and drive proactive settlement terms. For accused infringers,in-house counsel must identify potential validity weaknesses early on tohelp shift the settlement dynamic to their favor.

The system and method as described herein can help users such asin-house legal counsel guide their litigation strategy and institutecost-saving measures using the predictive analyses and actionableintelligence to avoid expensive legal proceedings. The system can offerthese businesses calculated insights to maximize on the chance to win inevery validity challenge. In sum, predictive analytic on patents helpsthese companies unlock the true value of business intelligence by makingcritical statistical information transparent, meaningful, and usable atmuch higher frequency.

For example, through the system and method described herein, small andlarge businesses can recruit the best outside counsel by searchingthrough the system based on the firm's credentials, success rate inpost-grant and inter partes review proceedings, and win statistics byattorney and judge pairings and other criteria, as will be discussed ingreater detail below.

To help formulate the most rewarding strategy, the system and method asdescribed herein also helps review any past or present proceedings forother cases to predict the likelihood that a current proceeding for aparticular patent will be terminated with one or more claims canceledand/or affirmed to help you determine your offensive or defensivestrategies, including whether to pursue patent infringement suits, ITC's§ 337 enforcement, and declaratory judgments, as will be discussed ingreater detail below.

Thus, the system and method as described herein can offer any small andlarge business the exceptional ability to settle on patent validityearly on in a case's lifecycle which helps to streamline pre-suitpreparation, reduce outside attorney and expert costs, and facilitatesettlement among the parties long before commencement of trial. Thecornerstone of success for many patent infringement suits is theintellectual, cognitive ability to make critical decisions quickly andaccurately. The system as described enables any company do just thatwhile reallocating cost savings to first-order priorities.

The advantages as described herein are not limited to businesses. Userssuch as IP stakeholders and collaborators (e.g., investors (venturecapitalists, investment banks), auditors, advisors, innovators, publicofficials, and influencers) also can benefit from the use of the systemand method described herein. For example, whether it's risk assessment,financial audit, or strategy consulting, IP stakeholders andcontributors to the IP management process can utilize the system andmethod described herein to provide a holistic approach to discoveringthe in's and out's of patents undergoing post-grant or inter partesreview proceedings.

As will be discussed in greater detail below, the system and method asdescribed herein can employ legal analytics and business intelligence tohelp users become acquainted with the current patent landscape,understand the economic impact of granted patents, and identify rapidtechnological trends.

As an example, the system and method as described herein allows itsusers to quickly identify which technology is and remains the mostactive, how patent filing patterns have changed over time, and whereimportant technology battles and business stakes are taking place. Thesystem and method as described herein can also provide a visualrepresentation of information in a way that is easy to understand,allowing for stakeholders and contributors to quickly captureinformation they need for their own due diligence research.

Data Mining Overview

A data mining tool is computer software that analyzes data and discoversrelationships, patterns, knowledge, or information from the data. Datamining is also referred to as knowledge discovery. Data mining toolsattempt to solve the problem of users being overwhelmed by the volume ofdata collected by computers operating business applications generallyand including particularly those for e-commerce. Data mining toolsattempt to shield users from the unwieldy body of data by analyzing it,summarizing it, or drawing conclusions from the data that the user canunderstand.

An analytic application is a software application that inputs historicaldata collected from a production system over time, analyzes thishistorical data, or samples of the historical data, and outputs thefindings back to the production system to help improve its operation.The term “application” is used throughout this specification to mean“software application,” referring to a category of software typicallyunderstood to be used directly by end users to solve practical problemsin their work.

Data mining is an important technology to be integrated into analyticapplications. Data mining can include data processing technology,combinations of hardware and software, that dynamically discoverpatterns in historical data records and applies properties associatedwith these records to production data records that exhibit similarpatterns. Use of data mining can include identifying a business problemto be solved, selecting a mining algorithm useful to solve the businessproblem, defining data schema to be used as inputs and outputs to andfrom the mining algorithm, defining data mining models based upon thedefined data schema, populating input data schema with historical data,training the data mining model based upon the historical data, andscoring historical data or production data by use of the model.

The term “model”, as described herein, can refer to data mining models.The terms “model” and “mining model” can both refer to data miningmodels. In some implementations, a data mining model can include a datamining model definition. In some implementations, a production-traineddata mining model can include a data mining model definition and aknowledge base.

“Data schema” can include data structures, defined aggregates of dataelements. As described herein, the term “data schema” refers to schemaand to data stores, files, or records fashioned in dependence upon theschema. The terms “field” and “data element” can be used as synonyms.Because of the convention of viewing records and fields in a file asthough they were respectively rows and columns on a chart, fields anddata elements can be sometimes referred to as “columns.” The term“record” can be used to refer to specific instances of data schema. Inthis sense, as the terms typically are used, data stores or databasesare comprised of data files which in turn are comprised of records whichin turn are comprised of data elements or fields.

Analytic applications can function in a general cycle in whichhistorical data is collected from a production system over time,historical data, or samples of historical data, can be analyzed, andfindings can be output back to the production system to help improve itsoperation. The quantities of data to be analyzed can be large, and thecomputational demand can be intense. The whole cycle can often beexecuted at regular intervals, for example, once daily at night so thatreports showing the analytic findings can be available for review thenext morning. There is an increasing demand, however, to do the analysisfaster and more frequently so that the results on business performancecan be reported back within as little as a few hours, in some cases, aslittle as two or three hours, or even far less (e.g., within seconds).In fact, it appears that there is a trend in this area of technology topress for near real-time analytic reporting, which is now made possibleby the advent of data mining technologies.

A data mining model can be defined to address a given business questionbased on a given data schema. Data mining tools can be genericapplications that are operated independently with respect to specificapplications. Because conventional data mining tools do not include setbusiness questions, predefined data schema, or predefined data miningmodels, end users would need to analyze business questions, define dataschema useful with respect to the questions, and define their own datamining models based upon the data schema. Developers of analyticapplications incorporating conventional data mining tools do not supplypredefined data mining models. Without predefined data mining models,the data mining analytic cycle could not be automated.

Accordingly, in analytic applications using data mining tools, there issignificant benefit in predefining, developing, and training data miningmodels whenever possible, as this will enable analytic applications todevelop analytic applications capable of automating data mining andanalytical cycles so that end users can train and apply predefined datamining models with no need for specialized data mining expertise andwith no need for end user intervention in data mining processes as such.

A useful key to simplifying the use of data mining in analyticapplications is to make the analytic application domain-specific.“Domain” refers to a problem subject area, and “domain-specific” meansthat an analytic application is designed to operate on the basis of datarelated to a particular problem subject area, where the data hasspecific defined data elements with defined relations among the dataelements. For example, legal industry is a specific domain, and adomain-specific analytic application for the legal industry would acceptand analyze only legal related data. For illustration purposes in thisspecification, legal is chosen as the domain of interest. However, thesubject matter described herein can be applied to other domains (e.g.,patent prosecution in which patent applications are examined by patentexaminers).

In general, for a specific domain, the system and methods as describedherein can identify business problems that are applicable to such aspecific domain. Once the business problems that need data mining areidentified, the system and methods as described herein can be used tobuild an analytic application to solve these business problems so thatthe analytic application developer can embed in the analytic applicationall data mining related knowledge needed for the solution so that theend user of the application does not require data mining specificexpertise.

The terms “input data,” “input schema,” “output data,” and “outputschema” refer to inputs and outputs to and from data mining algorithmsin data mining models. Naturally there are processes having inputs andoutputs other than data mining algorithms. Data output from historicaldata, for example can be input to data schema used for data mining. Anddata output from data mining can be input to production data.Nevertheless, by convention in the following discussion, “input data,”“input schema,” “output data,” and “output schema” refer to inputs andoutputs to and from data mining algorithms in data mining models.

Data Management System

FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a system for mining data fromdocuments. FIG. 8 shows an example of a process 800 for assessingvalidity or invalidity of a patent based on one or more analytical orstatistical models. FIG. 8 will now be discussed in conjunction withFIG. 1, FIG. 2 and FIG. 3.

At 802, a plurality of legal documents associated with a plurality oflegal cases can be received, where at least one of the plurality oflegal cases can be associated with a legal proceeding, and the legalproceeding can be associated with a determination of a validity orinvalidity of a patent (e.g., whether a claim of the patent will likelybe granted review, canceled or affirmed by the Board).

Referring to FIG. 1, a database management system 100 can be configuredto receive a plurality of legal documents. The database managementsystem 100 can include a data mining/analysis system 102 connected toone or more databases or repositories 104A to 104C′ and 106A to 106Cthat store data such as documents or files. Examples of such data caninclude, but are not limited to, legal documents, product descriptions,technical manuals, published journals, white papers, or the like. Wherethe repositories 104/106 include legal documents, such documents canalso include case decisions, orders, briefs, forms, treaties, academicjournals, or other types of law-related documents.

The data mining/analysis system 102 can also be connected to a pluralityof proprietary data sources 110 and 112 that are accessible over anetwork 104 such as the Internet or local area network. For example, thedata sources 110/112 can be privately accessible using a secureconnection technology, or they can be both publicly and privatelyaccessible. As another example, data source 110 can be privatelyaccessible over the network 104 using a secure connection, while datasource 112 can be publicly accessible over the network 104.

In some implementations, the documents in the repositories 104/106 anddata sources 110/112 can be fetched from a variety of public or privatesources or domains. In some implementations, the documents can includelegal documents fetched from the United States Patent and TrademarkOffice's database server. In some implementations, the legal documentscan include those submitted through the inter partes/post-grant reviewproceeding.

Inter partes/post-grant review proceeding (hereinafter, the “reviewproceeding”) is a trial proceeding conducted by the PTAB or Board toreview the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on a groundthat could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112, 102 and/or 103, and onthe basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.The review proceeding generally begins with a third party (e.g., apetitioner who wants to challenge the validity of one or more claims ofa patent) filing a petition after the later of either nine months afterthe grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent; or if a postgrant review has been instituted, the termination of the post grantreview. As part of the review proceeding, the patent owner can file apreliminary response to the petition.

The Board can then institute (or deny instituting) a post-grant or interpartes review proceeding upon a showing by the petitioner that there isa reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respectto at least one claim challenged. Based on the evidence in the record,the Board can decide whether to institute the review proceeding, and ifso, note the decision in its Decision (Not) to Institute Trial. TheBoard then allows the parties to perfect the record with exhibits,declarations, and evidence in support of their respective decision. Anoral hearing, if requested by the parties, can then be held. A FinalDecision order can then be issued by the Board within one year (whichcan be extendable for good cause by 6 months) from the date on which theDecision to Institute Trial is issued. The Final Decision summarizes theBoard's order as to whether the subject patent is valid or invalid, andif so, which claims are affirmed or canceled by the Board.

In some implementations, the database management system 100 cancommunicate with the Board's electronic workflow system such as thePatent Review Processing System (“PRPS”) for accessing documentssubmitted during the review proceeding in electronic format. Thesedocuments can be scanned into the Board's PRPS system and stored inelectronic image format.

In some implementations, the database management system 100 can access,retrieve, and store copies of the image records or electronically fileddocuments that have been scanned into or stored inside the PRPS system,including documents in various formats such as PDF, MPEG, or WORD files.

In some implementations, the database management system 100 can fetch,analyze and extract (e.g., from the PRPS system) documents submittedthroughout a review proceeding. For example, the database managementsystem 100 can receive a plurality of legal documents associated withthe review proceeding for each case such as, without limitation,petitions requesting trial, decisions to institute trial, requests forrehearing, scheduling orders, preliminary responses, motions to amend,motions to exclude, motions for additional discovery, motions to seal,requests to submit supplemental information, conduct of proceedings,oral hearing transcripts, final decisions, notices of appeal, andsettlement documents.

As another example, the database management system 100 can fetch fordocuments submitted during discovery such as affidavits or declarationsby experts or witnesses, documents submitted as part of a routinediscovery or additional discovery, and documents that are otherwisenecessary in the interest of justice.

As another example, the database management system 100 can fetch fordocuments submitted as part of a routine discovery including exhibitsthat are cited in filings or affidavits; cross examination ofindividuals submitting affidavit testimony; and relevant informationthat is inconsistent with a position being advanced by either the patentowner or the petitioner.

As another example, the database management system 100 can fetch fordocuments submitted as part of an additional discovery includingdocuments submitted in any other discovery a party wishes to pursue.Although the subject matter of such requests is not explicitlyrestricted, if the parties cannot agree on the availability or scope ofadditional discovery, the Board can allow it only upon a showing that“such additional discovery is in the interests of justice.”

Where a requesting party submits evidence tending to show that therequested discovery will lead to further evidence, such evidence canalso be included as legal documents to be analyzed and extracted.

Referring back to FIG. 8, at 804, the plurality of legal documents canbe stored in one or more databases. For example, the legal documentsextracted from the PRPS system can be stored in the repositories 104/106or data sources 110/112. In some implementations, the documents storedin the repositories 104/106 and data sources 110/112 can includestructured documents. For example, structured documents can include atable of contents, indexes, or other format or forms of organization.Examples of these structured documents can include petitions, mandatorynotices, and decisions (e.g., Decision (Not) to Institute Trial andFinal Decisions).

In some implementations, the documents stored in the repositories104/106 and data sources 110/112 can include non-structured documents.For example, non-structured documents can include exhibit lists, noticesof stipulation of due dates, parties' demonstratives, parties' list ofproposed motions, and other documents that do not have any particularformat or form of organization.

In some implementations, the documents in the repositories 104/106 anddata sources 110/112 can be stored in a portable document format (PDF)created by Adobe Systems Incorporated® of San Jose, Calif., and indexedfor researching. In other implementations, the data stored in therepositories 104/106 can operate with other equivalent or similardocument formats (e.g., WORD® or MPEG files).

In addition to extracting data and documents such as those discussedabove, the database management system 100 can be used to index the dataand documents stored in the repositories 104/106 and data sources110/112 to facilitate search, retrieval, and/or other functions. Forexample, legal documents, such as court decisions, briefs, motions,etc., can be stored and indexed for users to access electronically bythe database management system 100. As different legal documents caninclude different legal points or legal issues pertaining to differentjurisdictions, those, the database management system 100 can index andorganize such documents accordingly.

In some implementations, a search engine, though not shown, can beprovided to facilitate searching and retrieval. For example, searchterms can first be matched to terms appearing in the body of a document.Documents can then be ranked based on, for example, the distance betweenthe matched words in the document, and results shown via a computerapparatus 114.

In some implementations, the data mining/analysis system 102 and therepositories 104/106 and data sources 110/112 can be in communicationwith a client system or device including but not limited to desktopsystems, laptops, wireless personal digital assistants, smartphones, orthe like such as the computer apparatus 114. Components of the computingapparatus 114 can include those shown in FIG. 9. For example, the clientsystem can include one or more processors, and the processors can coupleto one or more bus systems.

The client system can include one or more instances of computer-readablestorage media, which couple to a bus systems. The bus systems can enablethe client system's processors to read code and/or data to/from thecomputer-readable storage media. The computer-readable storage media canrepresent storage elements implemented using any suitable technology,including but not limited to semiconductors, magnetic materials, optics,or the like. The media can include memory components, whether classifiedas RAM, ROM, flash, or other types, and can also represent hard diskdrives.

The computer-readable storage media can include one or more modules ofinstructions that, when loaded into the processor and executed, causethe client system to access data that was extracted from one or moredocuments. These modules can perform various algorithms and techniquesthat are described and illustrated as being performed by the clientsystems. For example, the computer-readable media can include one ormore applications, which can represent word processing applications,spreadsheet applications, database applications, applications related tomanaging workflows, or the like.

The computer-readable media can include a repository interface thatserves as an interface to the repositories 104/106 and data sources110/112. For example, the repository interface can provide a set ofmethods or application program interfaces (APIs) for querying therepositories 104/106 in response to requests from the user. In addition,the repository interface can receive responses from the repositories104/106 and data sources 110/112, and format them as appropriate forpresentation to the requesting user. Requests and responses can beexchanged between the interface and the repositories 104/106 and datasources 110/112. More specifically, these requests and responses caninclude a number of queries passing from the repository interface to therepositories 104/106, as well as mined data returned by the repositories104/106 and data sources 110/112 in response to these queries.

For a client system to access the data extracted from the one or moredocuments, a request or query can be sent to the repositories 104/106.For example, the repository interface can request any extracted datafrom the repositories 104/106 in response to requests received from oneor more client applications.

At the repositories 104/106, upon receiving the query for extracteddata, it can be determined whether the repositories 104/106 contain anyextracted data that is responsive to the input query. If therepositories 104/106 contain data responsive to the query, then aresponse along with the requested data is returned to the requestingrepository interface.

If the repositories 104/106 do not contain any extracted data responsiveto the input query, the data management system 100 can then mine one ormore documents in an effort to locate data responsive to the input query(e.g., as will be discussed in greater detail in FIG. 10C). For example,the data management system 100 can extract or mine any or allinformation from one or more of these documents, and subsequently updatethe repositories 104/106 with the results of such mining or extractionprocesses that can be then used by a data analysis system for developingmodels underlying the system's 100 predictions and recommendations.

The data management system 100, in some implementations, can return anerror message or otherwise indicating that the repositories 104/106 donot contain data responsive to the input query.

At the repository interface, the extracted or mined data can be arrangedor formatted for presentation (e.g., in the form of statistics) to oneor more users via the applications on the client device. For example,the data management system 100 can arrange the extracted data in theform of graphs, charts, or the like for presentation.

In sum, the database management system 100 can include software thatreceives and processes queries, obtains data satisfying the queries, andgenerates and transmits responses to the queries, such as to and fromthe data mining/analysis system 102, or for display on the computingapparatus 114. The data mining/analysis system 102 can store theattributes or data as mined or extracted from the documents stored inthe repositories 104/106. The information can be in the form of text,phrases, words, or keywords. Other related data elements or data itemsalso can be included.

While FIG. 1 shows examples in which the repositories 104/106 resideoutside the data mining/analysis system 102, it is noted that in someimplementations, the repositories 104/106 can be housed inside the datamining/analysis system 102. In some implementations, the repositories104/106 can reside on another server, and made accessible to the datamining/analysis system 102 over, for example, the network 104.

In some implementations, the data management system 100 can associatedifferent sets, elements, and/or variables of the extracted data withone another, so as to indicate structure or relationships amongdifferent instances of such data in a visual manner for presentation tothe user.

In some implementations, the data management system 100 can employ theserelationships to formulate one or more analytical or statistical models(e.g., as trained model 310) that can be used to produce predictiveanalytics. As will be discussed in greater detail below, the datamining/analysis system 102 can develop trained models that can includeanalytical or statistical models focusing on correlations andrelationships between various data (e.g., via the correlation module 222and the model development module 228, as will be discussed below) basedon, for example, the following sets, elements, and variables:

-   -   Name of the real party in interest for the petitioner (e.g., 23        out of 151 Final Decisions involve “Apple, Inc.” as the real        party in interest for the petitioner);    -   Name of the real party in interest for the patent owner (e.g.,        42 out of 151 Final Decisions involve “Intellectual Ventures,        Inc.” as the real party in interest for the patent owner);    -   Name of the petitioner's legal counsel and associated law firm        (e.g., 3 out of 151 Final Decisions involve “Fish & Richardson        P.C.” as the petitioner's legal counsel);    -   Name of the patent owner's legal counsel and associated law firm        (e.g., 42 out of 151 Final Decisions involve “McKool Smith” as        the patent owner's legal counsel);    -   Total number of patent claims in a patent being challenged        (e.g., patents with at least one claim affirmed by the Board        contain, on average. 20 claims with 2.3 independent claims and        17.7 dependent claims, and patents with at least one claim        canceled by the Board contain, on average, 5 claims with 1.7        independent claims and 3.3 dependent claims);    -   Number of patent claims being challenged (e.g., patents with at        least two claims canceled by the Board have, on average, 18.1        claims challenged by the petitioners, and patents with at least        three claims affirmed by the Board have, on average, 35.2 claims        challenged by the petitioners);    -   Number of prior art cited in the petition (e.g., patents with at        least five claims affirmed by the Board have on average, 5.4        prior art references cited by the petitioner, where 3.2 prior        art references have already been considered by the Patent        Office, and 2.2 prior art references are new references cited by        the petitioner, and patents with at least two claims canceled by        the Board have on average, 2.1 prior art references cited by the        petitioner, where 1.7 prior art references have already been        considered by the Patent Office, and 0.4 prior art references        are new references cited by the petitioner);    -   Number of grounds requested by the petitioner (e.g., patents        with at least two claims canceled by the Board have on average        6.2 grounds requested by the petitioner of which 3.2 grounds are        based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 1.2 grounds are based on 35 U.S.C.        § 102(b), 0.5 grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and 1.3        grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. § 103); and patents with at least        one claim affirmed by the Board have on average 3.3 grounds        requested by the petitioner of which 0.5 grounds are based on 35        U.S.C. § 102(a), 1.4 grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).        0.8 grounds are based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and 0.9 grounds are        based on 35 U.S.C. § 103);    -   Number of expert declarations submitted by the petitioner (e.g.,        patents with at least one claim canceled by the Board have, on        average, 3.2 declarations are submitted by the petitioner; and        patents with at least one claim affirmed by the Board have, on        average, 1.1 declarations are submitted by the petitioner);    -   Number of expert declarations submitted by the patent owner        (e.g., patents with at least one claim affirmed by the Board        have, on average, 2.3 declarations are submitted by the patent        owner; and patents with at least one claim canceled by the Board        have, on average, 0.5 declarations are submitted by the patent        owner);    -   Names of the presiding judges in Decision (Not) to Institute        Trial and Final Decision (e.g., judge “X” has a record of 95% in        affirming at least one claim; judge “Y” has a record of 91% in        canceling at least one claim, and judge “Z” has a record of 42%        and 58% in affirming and canceling at least one claim,        respectively);    -   Name of the authoring judge in Decision (Not) to Institute Trial        and Final Decision (e.g., the authoring judge “W” has a record        of 91% in ruling at least one claim construction in favor of the        petitioner, 94% in canceling at least one claim, 52% in favor of        the patent owner on the issue of assignee estoppel, and 32% in        granting review on at least one claim based on 35 U.S.C. § 103        ground);    -   Number of grounds based on 35 U.S.C. § 102 granted or denied by        the Board in Decision (Not) to Institute Trial (e.g., the Board        grants, on average, 2.1 grounds based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 1        ground based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), 0.3 ground based on 35        U.S.C. § 102(e));    -   Number of grounds based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 granted or denied by        the Board in Decision (Not) to Institute Trial (e.g., the Board        grants, on average, 4.2 grounds based on 35 U.S.C. § 103);    -   Total number of terms construed by the Board in Decision (Not)        to Institute Trial and Final Decision (e.g., on average, the        Board construes 4.2 terms in Decision to Institute Trial, 3.1 of        which favor the petitioner, and 1.1 favor the patent owner; and        3.2 terms in Final Decision, 2.4 of which favor the petitioner,        and 0.8 of which favor the patent owner);    -   Number of prior art already cited in the patent being challenged        and re-considered by the Board in Decision (Not) to Institute        Trial and Final Decision (e.g., patents with at least one claim        canceled have, on average, two prior art already cited in the        patent being challenged and re-considered by the Board);    -   Number of new prior art not already cited in the patent being        challenged and now considered by the Board in Decision (Not) to        Institute Trial and Final Decision (e.g., patents with at least        one claim canceled have, on average, three prior art references        newly cited by the petitioner and considered by the Board);    -   Number of terms construed by the Board in Decision (Not) to        Institute Trial and Final Decision that favors the petitioner in        related cases (e.g., patents with at least three claims canceled        by the Board have, on average, four claim terms construed that        favor the petitioner);    -   Number of terms construed by the Board in Decision (Not) to        Institute Trial and Final Decision that favors the patent owner        in related cases (e.g., patents with at least one claim canceled        by the Board have, on average, four claim terms construed that        favor the patent owner);    -   Number of claims canceled by the Board (e.g., on average, the        Board cancels 17.4 claims for each patent petitioned to be        reviewed by the petitioner);    -   Number of claims affirmed by the Board (e.g., on average, the        Board affirms 6.5 claims for each patent petitioned to be        reviewed by the petitioner);    -   Name of related cases (e.g., continuation, continuation-in-part,        divisional) also involved in inter partes/post-grant review        proceedings (e.g., cases with at least two related patents        undergoing inter partes/post-grant review have a 84% of being        canceled by the Board with respect to at least one claim); and    -   Case Name of Parallel District Court or ITC (International Trade        Commission) proceeding.

In some implementations, data associated with the foregoing attributescan be extracted from a current proceeding or a related proceeding(e.g., another inter partes/post-grant review proceeding involving apatent related to the one being challenged in the current proceeding) bythe data mining/analysis system 102. In some implementations, attributescan be gathered from other third-party data sources (e.g., private orpublic domains).

As discussed above, the data mining/analysis system 102 can provide anobjective evaluation of a patent being challenged via interpartes/post-grant review proceedings, and the likelihood that a patentwill be ruled valid (e.g. where all claims will be affirmed by theBoard), invalid (e.g. where all claims will be canceled by the Board),or partially valid/partially invalid (e.g., where some claims will beaffirmed while others will be canceled by the Board). In someimplementations, this evaluation can require access to pertinenthistorical data, such as in prior, related as well as unrelatedproceedings involving other related or unrelated patents. As an example,the evaluation can take into the account of all prior winning records bya particular attorney before the Board in evaluating the likelihood thata patent being challenged by that attorney will likely to be grantedreview, or ruled valid or invalid.

As this pertinent data is acquired, it can be stored and compiled withinthe data mining/analysis system 102. The data mining/analysis system 102can be implemented as a relational database management system (RDBMS) tofacilitate the creation of data relationships/correlations and theapplication of sophisticated statistical analysis with an emphasis onpredictive modeling.

Using a sophisticated statistical analysis, the data mining/analysissystem 102 can generate objective reports that can be utilized by legalpractitioners, law firms, consultants, investors, and IP stakeholderswho might have an interest in patent validity based on the datarelationships. These reports can help determine functional limitationsand interrelationships and correlations between various attributes andvariables (e.g., attributes and variables discussed above and below).Likewise this process can help users such as in-house legal counselguide their litigation strategy and institute cost-saving measures toavoid expensive legal proceedings.

In compiling the data and predictive analytics, training data can becollected for analyzing the data populations used to generatepredictions and recommendations, and ensure data integrity. The datamining/analysis system 102 can store data pertinent to each patent anyand all historical data about the patent as well as domestic and foreignprosecution history. Data variables can be defined from within thecollection of data (e.g., variables such as, without limitation, name ofassignee/patent owner, number of claims, judges' names and the like),and mathematical constructs (e.g., beta, chi-square and gammastatistical models) can be applied in determining each variable'sstatistical significance in making variable associations, predictingdata outcomes, and identifying actionable tasks in the form ofrecommendations.

For example, statistical analysis can be applied to determine howstrongly the use of three expert declarations by the petitioner predictsthat at least one claim in the disputed patent will likely be canceledor affirmed by the Board. Other correlations, such as those discussedbelow, also are contemplated.

While the foregoing implementations are described with respect topatents being challenged (e.g., patents where associated petitions havealready been filed), these implementations also are applicable topatents that are not yet challenged (e.g., patents not yet petitioned orchallenged by the petitioner). In some implementations, the datamining/analysis system 102 can generate analytical or statistical modelssimilar to those discussed above for patents not yet challenged byextracting and analyzing patent data such as the name of the assignee,filing date, issue date, number of references cited, number of claims asissued, legal counsel representing the patent owner (e.g., the law firmor attorney on the record responsible for prosecution), related cases,field of search, classification, and the like. These data, in someimplementations, can be compared to those patents under challenged toprovide a comprehensive list of predictive analytics, as will be ingreater detail discussed below.

Data Extraction

As discussed above, the data mining/analysis system 102 can be incommunication with a variety of data sources 110/112 and repositories104/106. FIG. 2 shows an example structure of the data mining/analysissystem 102.

Referring to FIG. 2, the data mining/analysis system 102 can include adata mining system (or module) 202 having an internally stored data 204,a data mining engine 208, and a pattern module 207. In someimplementations, the data 206 can be arranged as a plurality of datatables, such as relational data tables, as well as indexes and otherstructures that facilitate access to the data. The data mining engine208 can perform data mining processes, such as processing data togenerate data mining models and responding to requests for data miningresults from one or more users, such as user 212.

Though not shown, the data mining/analysis system 102 can includedatabase management processing routines that provide database managementfunctionality, such as database query processing, and data miningprocessing routines that implement the data mining processing. In someimplementations, this data mining processing can be integrated withdatabase management processing. For example, the data mining processingcan be initiated by receipt of a database query, either in standard SQLor in the form of extended SQL statements.

Referring back to FIG. 8, at 806, one or more predetermined patterns canbe applied to the plurality of legal documents to identify referencedata. For example, data mining engine 208 can apply one or morepredetermined patterns to the legal documents stored in the repositories104/106 in performing one or more data mining processes, concurrently orsequentially.

For example, where the documents stored in the repositories 104/106include one or more legal documents, the data mining system 202 canextract information that can include legal terms found within suchdocuments and/or standardizations of such terms. Legal terms caninclude, but are not limited to, words or phrases that are associatedwith laws and statutes (e.g., “America Invents Act,” “35 U.S.C. § 102,”“35 U.S.C. § 103”, “35 U.S.C. § 112” and the like), legal theories(e.g., “anticipation,” “obviousness,” “inherency”, “long-felt need,” and“secondary considerations”), case names (e.g., “Apple v. Samsung,”“ContentGuard Holdings Inc. v. ZTE Corporations,” and the like), orwords commonly used in the legal field (e.g., “laches,” “estoppel,”“authentication”, “hearsay” and the like).

In some implementations, depending on the information desired to beextracted, different patterns (e.g., managed by the pattern module 207)can be applied to the documents. For example, the data mining system 202can apply a particular pattern recognition (e.g., “registration no.”,“reg. no.”, “registration number”, “reg. number”, and the like) to thelegal documents to extract information associated with a legal counsel'sregistration number. As another example, the data mining system 202 canapply a different pattern recognition (e.g., “patent number”, “pat.no.”, “patent no.”, “patent #”, and the like) to the legal documents toextract information associated with the patent number of the subjectpatent.

As yet another example, the data mining system 202 can apply thefollowing pattern code to receive a text in a document, split the textinto one or more sentences, and parse each sentence separately toextract data associated with variables such as claim number, relatedstatutes, decision by the Board:

String paragraph=Joiner.on(“ ”).join(chapter.getLines( ));

String[ ] sentences=NIpUtils.getInstance( ).sentenceSplit(paragraph);

for (String sentence:sentences) {

-   -   List<Claim>parsedClaims==extractor.parseSentence(sentence,        status);    -   if (parsedClaims!=null && !paragraph.isEmpty( )) {        -   result.addAll(parsedClaims);    -   }

}

return result;

Other more complex data can be extracted using a variety of patternrecognition techniques such as maximum-likelihood and Bayesian parameterestimation, nonparametric techniques, distance-based methods, lineardiscriminant functions, and cluster-based natural language processing,in addition to or conjunction with data mining algorithms such as C4.5(e.g., classifiers expressed as decision trees), k-Means, SVM (SupportVector Machine), Apriori, EM (Expectation-Maximization), PageRank,AdaBoost, kNN (k-nearest neighbor classification), Naive Bayes, andCART.

Based on the foregoing pattern recognition techniques, the data miningsystem 202 can apply one or more predetermined patterns to extractinformation in a petition filed by third parties or petitionerschallenging the validity of one or more claims in a patent, includingattributes and variables such as, without limitation, those shown inTABLE A below:

TABLE A 1. The name of a petitioner e.g., real party of interest of thepetitioner including all licensor/licensee information); 2. The name ofa patent owner (e.g., real party of interest of the patent ownerincluding all licensor/licensee information); 3. The patent number of apatent for which the petition is filed; 4. The name of counsel and/orlaw firm representing the petitioner; 5. Any related matter (e.g.,parallel district court, ITC, IPR (inter partes) or CBM (coveredbusiness method) case(s)); 6. Related technology area (e.g., viaclass(es) and subclass(es) under which the subject patent isclassified); 7. The number of claims challenged and the listing of suchclaims; 8. The total number of 102/103 grounds requested by thepetitioner in the petition; 9. The name of any expert witness whosedeclaration is being relied upon in the petition; 10. The identificationof all relevant prior art cited in the petition; 11. Identification ofterms with the petitioner's claim construction; 12. Legal authority orcase law cited by the petitioner; and 13. Legal arguments advanced bythe petitioner.

As another example, the data mining system 202 can apply one or morepredetermined patterns to extract information in the patent owner'spreliminary responses that can include attributes and variables such as,without limitation, those shown in TABLE B below:

TABLE B 1. The date on which a preliminary response is waived, if any;2. The filing date of the preliminary response; 3. The name of apetitioner (e.g., real party of interest of the petitioner including alllicensor/licensee information); 4. The name of a patent owner (e.g.,real party of interest of the patent owner including alllicensor/licensee information); 5. The name of counsel and/or law filmrepresenting the patent owner; 6. The name of any expert witness whosedeclaration is being relied upon in the preliminary response; 7. Theidentification of all relevant prior art discussed in the preliminaryresponses; 8. Identification of terms being disputed by the patentowner; 9. Any related matter (e.g., parallel district court, ITC, IPR(inter partes) or CBM (covered business method) case(s)); 10. Legalauthority or case law cited by the patent owner; and 11. Legal argumentsadvanced by the patent owner.

As another example, the data mining system 202 can apply one or morepredetermined patterns to extract information in the Board's Decisionsto Institute Trial that can include attributes and variables such as,without limitation, those shown in TABLE C below:

TABLE C 1. The names of the presiding judges; 2. The name of theauthoring judge; 3. The date of the Decision (Not) to Institute Trial;4. The total number of claims granted for review by the Board andlisting of such claims; 5. The total number of claims denied review bythe Board and listing of such claims; 6. The total number of 102/103grounds granted by the Board in instituting trials; 7. Theidentification of claims granted and denied under 102 and/or 103grounds; 8. The number of prior art references used in 103 groundsgranted by the Board; 9. The date of the initial conference call betweenthe presiding judges and the parties; 10. Claim terms and theirrespective claim constructions; 11. Identification of claim term(s)constructed by the petitioner and adopted by the Board; 12.Identification of claim term(s) constructed by the patent owner andadopted by the Board; 13. Identification of claim terms construed by theBoard on its own; 14. Identification of claim terms given plain meaningby the Board; 15. Identification of claim terms involving 35 U.S.C,§112, 6^(th) paragraph; 16. Any related matter (e.g., parallel districtcourt, ITC, IPR (inter partes) or CBM (covered business method)proceeding(s)); 17. Legal arguments addressed by the Board in grantingor denying the petition; and 18. Legal authority or case law cited bythe Board in granting or denying the petition.

As another example, the data mining system 202 can apply one or morepredetermined patterns to extract information in the Board's FinalDecision that can include attributes and variables such as, withoutlimitation, those shown in TABLE D below:

TABLE D 1. The names of the presiding judges for the Final Decision; 2.The name of the judge authoring the Final Decision; 3. The date of thewritten Final Decision; 4. Any related matter (e.g., IPR or CBM case(s)that have been consolidated in the proceeding; 5. The date of oralhearing; 6. Identification of prior art relied upon by the petitionerand the Board; 7. Claim terms and their respective claim constructions;8. Identification of claim term(s) constructed by the petitioner andadopted by the Board; 9. Identification of claim term(s) constructed bythe patent owner and adopted by the Board; 10. Identification of claimterms construed by the Board on its own; 11. Identification of claimterms given plain meaning by the Board; 12. Identification of claimterms involving 35 U.S.C. §112, 6^(th) paragraph; 13. Legal argumentsaddressed by the Board in affirming or canceling one or more claims; and14. Legal authority or case law cited by the Board in affirming orcanceling one or more claims.

As discussed above, the pattern module 207 can apply one or morepredetermined patterns to identify reference data from each of theplurality of legal documents. In some implementations, the referencedata can be analyzed by aggregating the reference data from each legaldocument to develop the one or more analytical or statistical models.For example, reference data from documents “A”. “B” and “C” can beaggregated to develop the one or more analytical or statistical models.In some implementations, these reference data can be extracted fromlegal documents associated with a same proceeding. In otherimplementations, these reference data can be extracted from legaldocuments associated with a different proceeding.

In some implementations, as part of the data mining process, the datamining system 202 can build and score data mining models, and generatepredictive analytics in the form of predictions and recommendations. Forexample, the data mining system 202 can mine the legal documents in therepositories 104/106, build a data analytic model based on the mined orextracted data (e.g., correlation between the total number of prior artreferences and having at least one claim affirmed or canceled), andgenerate predictions such as the likelihood that at least one claim of aparticular patent will be granted review, canceled or affirmed by theBoard.

The data mining system 202 can be used to extract data as well as legaldata from a variety of data sources. The data sources can include thePatent Office, third parties' blogs, statistics provided by legalpractitioners and law firms, and financial documents including auditingmaterials.

In brief, the data mining/analysis system 102 can be implemented toprovide an objective evaluation of a patent being challenged (or to bechallenged) via inter partes/post-grant review proceedings, and thelikelihood that the patent will be ruled valid, invalid, or partiallyvalid/partially invalid based on historical data and predictiveanalytics.

In some implementations, the data mining engine 208 can be created usinga data mining application programming interface (DMAPI). The DMAPI candefine a set of classes and operations to create and manipulate datamining objects.

The DMAPI can be implemented as a two tiered architecture consisting ofa thin client-side API layer, which provides a direct interface with anapplication program. The API layer can be a client-side layer, and canbe executed in a client computer system. The DMAPI, also can include athick server-side implementation layer, and can be executed in a servercomputer system. The interface can be implemented using the JAVA® (Java)programming language.

Java is a high-level programming language developed by SUNMICROSYSTEMS®. Java is an object-oriented language similar to C++, butsimplified to eliminate language features that cause common programmingerrors. Java source code files (files with a java extension) arecompiled into a format called bytecode (files with a class extension),which can then be executed by a Java interpreter. Compiled Java code canrun on most computers because Java interpreters and runtimeenvironments, known as Java Viral Machines (VMs), exist for mostoperating system, including UNIX®, Apple's Mac IOS®, and MicrosoftWindows®. Bytecode can also be converted directly into machine languageinstructions by a just-in-time compiler (JIT). Java is a general purposeprogramming language with a number of features that make the languagewell suited for use on the World Wide Web. Small Java applications arecalled Java applets and can be downloaded from a Web server and run onyour computer by a Java-compatible Web browser, such as Google's Chrome®or Microsoft's Internet Explorer®.

Scripting of data mining operation sequences can be accomplished througha combination of the DMAPI calls and standard Java code. This allows theDMAPI to provide a fully supported and flexible interface for providingdata mining functionality to application programs. Implementation layercan be provided as a Java core implementation with a PL/SQL wrapper,which is automatically generated, making it accessible to the Java DMAPIclient-side API layer via Java Database Connectivity (JDBC). JDBC is aJava API that enables Java programs to execute SQL statements. Thisallows Java programs to interact with any SQL-compliant database. Sincenearly all relational database management systems (DBMSs) support SQL,and because Java itself runs on most platforms, JDBC makes it possibleto write a single database application that can run on differentplatforms and interact with different DBMSs.

The DMAPI can provide a Java-based API that enables scripting withinJava programs. Java has become the programming language of choice formany advanced applications, including web-based applications andservers. This makes the API more accessible and usable by a broaderrange of customers. This also avoids having to develop a proprietaryscripting syntax with associated programming control constructs.

In some implementations, the DMAPI can be in communication with a MiningObject Repository (MOR) to maintain mining metadata defined by the datamining schema and serves as the focus for logging into the data miningsystem, logging off, and validating users to use MOR and data miningfunctionality.

In some implementations, the DMAPI can be in communication with one ormore mining projects that serves as containers for the data miningobjects used and created by a user. Each user can have one or moreprojects, and each project can maintain a separate name space withinwhich to name mining objects. Users can choose to mark a project asshared such that all other users of the system have read-only and copyprivileges. Multiple users can log in using the same user ID if theywish to work in the same project since a project can be owned by asingle user ID. A mining sessions also can be included in the datamanagement system 100 to serve as containers for the data miningprocessing performed on behalf of a user during each login session.

In some implementations, the DMAPI can be in communication with one ormore mining tables that map to a table or a view. Each table can includea set of columns of data mining data and associated metadata. Miningtable instances can exist within the MOR.

In some implementations, the DMAPI can be in communication with one ormore data transformations that include computations or manipulationsperformed on a data mining table, a data column in a data mining table,a data row in a data mining table, or a value in a data row or a datacolumn in a data mining table to support data exploration or preparationleading to providing a table's data for data mining. Transformations canutilize mining table and column metadata, including statistics, asmaintained in MOR, to effect the transformation.

In some implementations, the DMAPI can be in communication with one ormore mining settings that specify the parameters for building aparticular type of data mining model. Settings can include both generaland algorithm-specific data. Instances can be reused to build multiplemodels on different datasets.

In some implementations, the DMAPI can be in communication with one ormore mining models that represent the result of mining algorithm buildoperations. Each mining model includes a set of rules that implement theconditions and decisions that make up the model. These conditions anddecisions can be represented as metadata and extensible markup language(XML) strings. Each XML string contains specific model statistics andresults that can be of interest to end users. The mining results caninclude prediction/recommendation information produced as a result ofthe model scoring process, which yields several kinds of result objects:lift, evaluation (e.g., confusion matrix), apply, etc. Instances of themining results and subclasses maintain the model that created the resultand the mining input data.

In some implementations, the DMAPI can be in communication with one ormore schema views that can be formed as part of the DMAPI that exposescertain tables in MOR schema as views to allow unrestricted read-onlyaccess for end users. These views can be one-to-one mappings to thesource MOR table, or derivatives of one or more MOR tables as deemedappropriate. This avoids having the DMAPI become too verbose toanticipate developer needs and provides flexible querying by users.

The DMAPI can support remote invocation of data mining functionality andsupporting Java and PL/SQL packages, as well as database-internal usage.The DMAPI can provide progress feedback to users for long runningoperations. As such, the DMAPI functionality can be categorized asdirect, synchronous manipulation of MOR tables involving fastoperations, longer running operations requiring status reporting,asynchronous operations, workflow-supported database operations, andenqueuing requests for the data mining processing.

Some DMAPI operations take less than one second to execute. These can orcan not access the MOR database. Such operations occur synchronously andprovide no feedback to the user on progress, indicative of their fastexecution. Other DMAPI operations that are also synchronous can takeconsiderably longer to execute, on the order of minutes or hours, e.g.,the execution of a sophisticated query over a very large mining table.These operations accept a status request and return status information.Asynchronous operations can be supported by workflow processing or canenqueue their requests for processing. Once the DMAPI turns over controlto an asynchronous handler, it is up to the handler to provide statusnotifications.

Data Analysis

Referring back to FIG. 8, at 808, the reference data can be analyzed todevelop one or more analytical or statistical models, each analytical orstatistical model pertaining to a different statistic associated with adifferent attribute of the plurality of the legal documents.

For example, in addition to the data mining system 202, the datamining/analysis system 102 can also include a data analysis system (ormodule) 220 in communication with the data mining system 202 to performsuch an analysis. As shown in FIG. 2, the data analysis system 220 caninclude a correlation module 222, a selection module 224, a statisticsmodule 226, a model development module 228, a machine learning module230, and an argument module 232.

At the outset, information required for developing one or moreanalytical or statistical models can be input to the data analysissystem 220 (e.g., data extracted by the data mining system 202). Theinformation can include a plurality of modeling variables, dependentvariables, and/or a dataset for the plurality of modeling variables.

For example, the modeling variables can include any of the attributesextracted from the petition such as, without limitation, the real partyof interest of the petitioner, the real party of interest of the patentowner, name of counsel and/or law firm representing the petitionerand/or patent owner, the number of claims challenged and the listing ofsuch claims.

As another example, the modeling variables can include any of theattributes extracted from the Board's Decision (Not) to Institute Trialsuch as, without limitation, the names of the presiding judges, and thename of the authoring judge.

In some implementations, the dependent variables can include the numberof claims granted review, or the number of claims affirmed or canceledby the Board.

To prepare the reference data for analysis, the plurality of modelingvariables can be associated by the correlation module 222. Theassociation can be performed to obtain a linear (or non-linear)relationship of each of the plurality of modeling variables, in relationto the dependent variable(s). In some implementations, a plurality ofassociations can be generated for each modeling variable.

An association can be selected for each modeling variable, from theplurality of associations, based on one or more association rules. Insome implementations, the one or more association rules can be based ona correlation between the modeling variable(s) and the dependentvariable(s). The association rule can also be based on a proportion of arange of the modeling variable utilized, and a proportion of a range ofthe dependent variable(s) that is(are) explained by the modelingvariable.

Optionally, a set of variables can be selected from the associatedmodeling variables by the selection module 224. In some implementations,a clustering of the associated modeling variables can be performed tocreate variable clusters. The set of variables can be selected from thevariable clusters based on one or more selection rules. In someimplementations, at least one variable can be selected from eachvariable cluster.

In some implementations, the one or more selection rules can be based ona correlation between an independent variable and the dependentvariable.

In some implementations, the one or more selection rules can be based ona log-likelihood difference. The log-likelihood difference is thedifference between two model-fit statistics, one being derived byutilizing an intercept model, and the other being derived by utilizingan intercept-plus-covariate model.

Next, a regression of the set of variables (or other suitable analyticalor statistical methods) can be performed by the statistics module 226.The regression can be performed for determining one or more predictionvariables. In some implementations, a stepwise regression can beperformed. In some implementations, a logistic regression can beperformed. In some implementations, an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)regression can be performed.

Subsequently, the model development module 228 can prepare a predictivemodel by utilizing the one or more prediction variables obtained fromthe statistics module 226. In some implementations, the preparation ofthe predictive model can include reviewing the associations of theplurality of modeling variables and validating the predictive model. Insome implementations, the preparation of the predictive models canfurther include a modification or continuous refinement of thepredictive model.

In sum, the model development module 228 can prepare the predictivemodel based on the prediction variables. The model development module228 can also enable a user to perform modification of the predictivemodel, review of the plurality of associations of the plurality ofmodeling variables, and validation of the predictive model.

In some implementations, in lieu of or in addition to conductingregression analysis, the statistics module 226 can also apply othersuitable data analysis algorithms to the dataset including, for example,Multiple Additive Regression Tree, Stepwise Logistic Regression, orRandom Forest Analysis that can be used by the model development module228 in creating the predictive model.

The Stepwise Logistic Regression is a statistical model that predictsthe probability of occurrence of an event by fitting the data input to alogistic curve. In the logistic model, a predefined set of explanatoryvariables can affect the probability through a logistic link function.To determine the optimum set of explanatory variables selected from anumber of candidate variables, a large number of logistic regressionmodels can be built from an initial model in a stepwise fashion andcompared through the evaluation of Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) inorder to determine the most accurate model.

As another example, the Random Forest algorithm, which is an ensemblelearning method, can be used to classify objects based on the outputsfrom a large number of decision trees. Each decision tree can be trainedon a bootstrap sample of the available data, and each node in thedecision tree can be split by the best explanatory variables. RandomForest can both provide automatic variable selection and describenon-linear interactions between the selected variables.

Using an algorithm such as the Random Forest algorithm that attempts tomake large numbers of predictions from relatively small sample datasets, the data analysis system 220 can generate a massive predictiongrid of, among other things, all patents in dispute and all claims thatwill likely be granted review, canceled, or affirmed by the Board.

For example, data associated with one or more modeling variables anddependent variables as well as dataset can be extracted from one set oftest cases. Then, a predictive model can be developed and trained basedon such test data using Random Forest algorithm to predict the number ofclaims of a particular patent that might be granted review by the Board.The trained model can then be applied to a second set of test cases topredict the number of claims that will likely be granted review,canceled or reviewed by the Board. Because information associated withthe number of claims granted review, canceled, or reviewed among thesecond set of test cases are readily known a priori, the accuracy of thepredicted results output by the trained model can readily be assessedand fine-tuned. Any discrepancy of the trained model can be remedied byfine tuning the algorithm until the error rate falls below a particularthreshold (e.g., +1-1 claim).

In general, depending on the size of the initial training data set, theRandom Forest algorithm can be trained to produce highly accurateclassifications; handle large number of input variables; estimate theimportance of variables for classification; estimate missing data;maintain accuracy when a large portion of data is missing; facilitatecomputing proximity of data classes for detecting outliers and forvisualizing the data; and facilitate experimental detection ofinteraction of variables.

The Random Forest algorithm can also utilize homogeneous tree algorithmsthat achieve diversity through randomization, and heterogeneouscombinations of multiple tree algorithms, such as mean margins decisiontree learning algorithms, standard entropy-reducing decision treelearning algorithms, multivariate decision trees, oblique decisiontrees, perceptron decision trees, and the like to enhance the accuracyof the prediction models.

Alternative to learning decision tree type algorithms can includemulticlass support vector machines, and algorithms that facilitatepredictive analysis of current and historical facts to make predictions,such as classification tree algorithms, regression tree algorithms,Classification And Regression Tree (CART) algorithms, Chi-squaredAutomatic Interaction Detector (CHAID) algorithms, QUEST algorithms, C5algorithms, and boosted trees algorithms.

Data and attributes from various inter partes/post-grant reviewproceedings can then be used to determine the odds that at least oneclaim of a patent with overlapping attributes and data will be grantedreview, canceled or affirmed by the Board. This can produce an oddsratio in the form of a probability representative of the likelihood thata patent will be ruled valid or invalid by the Board.

Over time, more data from new incoming cases and associated historiesand rulings can be factored into the results and the odds can berecalculated. Because the data management system 100 includes feedbackbased on on-going case data and result, the algorithm that was initiallyfit to then-existing data can be automatically updated, adjusted andcontinuously refined as new data is provided.

FIG. 3 shows an example of components of a data analysis system 300 inaddition to those shown in FIG. 2. Referring to FIG. 3, the dataanalysis system 300 can train and develop one or more analytical orstatistical models using a model engine 302 (e.g., which can becontrolled by the model development module 228) that can be used toperform recommendation/prediction, clustering, association rulegeneration, and the like. The inputs to the model engine 302 can includetraining parameters 304, training data 306, and untrained models 308,all of which can be gathered using the information and data extracted bythe data mining system 202.

Model building can include developing the analytical or statisticalmodels for evaluating legal documents, which can be used to performpredictions and recommendations for an actionable strategy.

The training parameters 304 can include a configuration that defines thedefault system settings that affect data mining system operation andalgorithm model building behavior, such as maximum allowed parallelismfor a given model build. The training parameters 304 also can includeschemas to define the data used in the data mining process by providingmetadata on the attributes used by the data mining algorithms.Optionally, the training parameters 304 and/or the training data 306 caninclude a client input containing information that allows the user tocontrol the building, training, and development of data analytical orstatistical models.

For example, the client input can take the role of settings thatprescribe model selection and data statistical algorithm behavior. Theconfiguration, the schema, and the client input can all form as part ofthe training parameters that can be input to the model engine 302 thatsets up the models for training.

In some implementations, the training parameters 304 can includevariables associated with data specifying a number of parameters to beused in a data analytical or statistical model such as, withoutlimitation, names of presiding and authoring judges, total number ofclaims being challenged, total patent claims in the subject patent,claim numbers for claims being granted on review, legal counselrepresenting the petitioner, legal counsel representing the patentowner, and the like, and a type of model to be built, such as aprediction model, a self-organizing map, a k-means model, a competitivelearning model, and other parameters that are specific to the type ofmodel selected.

In some implementations, the training data 306 can include data that isinput to the algorithms and which can be used to actually build themodels. Model building can also partition “build data” into training,evaluation, and test datasets. The evaluation dataset can be used by themodel building algorithm to avoid overtraining, while the test datasetcan be used to provide error estimates of the model.

In some implementations, the training data 306 can include a subset ofdata for a plurality of cases whose data have previously been extractedby the data mining engine 208. The subset of data can include data for aplurality of variables extracted from a plurality of legal cases andproceedings. For example, the variables can include the total number ofclaims being challenged and the names of the presiding judges assignedto case “X”, and the data can include “5” as the total number of claimsbeing challenged, and “SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and JUSTIN T.ARBES” as the presiding judges and “SALLY C. MEDLEY” as the authoringjudge (e.g., the judge authoring the Decision (Not) to Institute Trialor Final Decision).

In some implementations, the training data 306 can include actual dataor parameters that can be generated and entered into the representationat the time when the data analysis system 220 develops or trains themodel using its model building algorithms. In some implementations, thetraining data also can include manually extracted data (e.g., which canbe manually entered by the user).

In some implementations, the input can also include untrained models 308such as initialized or untrained representations of the models inaddition to algorithms that process the training data 306 in order tofurnish a complete data mining model. Such a representation can includea structural representation of the model that either does not actuallycontain data that makes up the model, or contains only default or sampledata or parameters.

In some implementations, the untrained models 308 need not includeuntrained representations of the models, but only include the algorithmsthat process the training data 306 in order to actually build themodels. The training parameters 304 can include parameters that can beinput to the analytical or statistical model building algorithms tocontrol how the algorithms build the models.

When training and developing an analytical or statistical model, themodel engine 302 can invoke analytical or statistical model buildingalgorithms associated with the untrained models 308, initialize thealgorithms using the training parameters 304, process training data 306using the algorithms to build the model, and generate one or moretrained models 310.

In some implementations, the model engine 302 can initially develop atleast one of a first trained model associated with an identity of apetitioner challenging the validity of the patent, a second trainedmodel associated with an identity of a patent owner of the patent, athird trained model associated with a total number of claims in thepatent, and a fourth trained model associated with an identity of one ormore presiding judges assigned to the legal proceeding associated withthe determination of the validity or invalidity of the patent upon whichother trained or analytical or statistical models can be built to finetune or improve the overall probability that the subject patent will beruled valid or invalid, or at least one claim will be granted review,canceled, or affirmed by the Board.

In some implementations, the trained model 310 can include rules thatimplement the conditions and decisions that make up the operationalmodel. As part of the process of building and refining the trained model310, the trained model 310 can be evaluated. For example, rules thatdecrease or do not contribute to the overall quality or predictionaccuracy of the model can be eliminated from the model. The remainingrules of trained model 310 can be encoded in an appropriate format anddeployed for use in making predictions or recommendations.

In some implementations, the trained model 310 can include one or moreanalytical or statistical models modeling statistics and/or correlationsbetween various data. For example, the trained model 310 can includeanalytical or statistical models identifying a correlation between aparticular legal argument or doctrine (e.g., assignor estoppel) andhaving at least one patent claim affirmed or canceled by the Board(e.g., a dependent variable where 80% of cases with at least one claimcanceled involve the legal issue of assignee estoppel).

Other exemplary trained models can include models that cover one or morecorrelations between variables in the context of granting review,canceling or affirming at least one claim.

For example, trained models can include models that cover one or morecorrelations between variables in the context of granting review of atleast one claim of the subject patent such as, but are not limited to:

TABLE E 1. The correlation between the total number of grounds (e.g., 35U.S.C. §102 or 103) relied upon by the petitioner and having at leastone claim granted review by the Board (e.g., 56.3% of cases with atleast one claim granted review by the Board involve a petition seeking,on average, three grounds of rejection two of which are based on 35U.S.C. §102 and one of which is based on 35 U.S.C. §103); 2. Thecorrelation between the filing of a preliminary response and having atleast one claim granted review by the Board (e.g., 12.2% of the caseswith at least one claim granted review by the Board involve a PatentOwner filing a preliminary response to the Petitioner's petition); 3.The correlation between a particular petitioner's counsel and having atleast one claim granted review by the Board (e.g., 97.2% of the caseshandled by Attorney “Alex Chan” on behalf of the petitioner have atleast one claim granted review by the Board); 4. The correlation betweenthe patent owner's counsel and having at least one claim granted reviewby the Board (e.g.; 62.2% of the cases handled by Attorney “Alex Chan”on behalf of the patent owner have at least one claim granted review bythe Board); 5. The correlation between the number of the Board's Orderof the Proceedings and having at least one claim granted review by theBoard; 6. The correlation between the total number of experts and havingat least one claim granted review by the Board (e.g., 93.3% of the caseswith at least one claim granted review by the Board have engaged oneexpert in support of the petitioner); 7. The correlation between thetotal number of prior art references submitted by the petitioner andhaving at least one claim granted review by the Board (e.g., 92.2% ofthe cases with at least one claim granted review by the Board involvethe consideration of seven prior art references submitted by thepetitioner, three of which are newly cited and four are in the existingrecord); 8. The correlation between the number of newly cited prior artreferences submitted by the petitioner and having at least one claimgranted review by the Board (e.g.. 82.3% of the cases with at least oneclaim granted review by the Board involve the submission of 3.2 newlycited prior art references by the petitioner); 9. The correlationbetween the number of prior art references cited during prosecution andrelied upon by the petitioner and having at least one claim grantedreview by the Board (e.g., 82.3% of the cases with at least one claimgranted review by the Board involve the reliance on 4.2 prior artreferences cited during prosecution); 10. The correlation between thetotal number of terms requested for construction by the Petitioner andhaving at least one claim granted review by the Board (e.g., 96.3% ofthe cases with at least one claim granted review by the Board have onaverage four claim terms requested for construction by the Petitioner);11. The correlation between a particular presiding judge and having atleast one claim granted review by the Board; 12. The correlation betweena particular legal argument/doctrine (or a combination of legalarguments/doctrines) and having at least one claim granted review by theBoard; 13. The correlation between a filing of a motion for additionaldiscovery and having at least one claim granted review by the Board; 14.The correlation between a filing of a request for rehearing and havingat least one claim granted review by the Board; and 15. The correlationbetween the technology underlying a patentin dispute and having at leastone claim granted review by the Board.

As another example, trained models can include models that cover one ormore correlations between variables in the context of canceling at leastone claim of the subject patent such as, but are not limited to:

TABLE F 1. The correlation between the total number of grounds (e.g., 35U.S.C. §102 or 103) relied upon by the petitioner and having at leastone claim canceled by the Board (e.g., 90% of cases with at least oneclaim canceled by the Board involve a petition seeking, on average, ninegrounds of rejection five of which are based on 35 U.S.C. §102 and fourof which are based on 35 U.S.C. §103); 2. The correlation between thetotal number of grounds (e.g., 35 U.S.C. §102 or 103) granted for reviewby the Board and having at least one claim canceled by the Board (e.g.,90% of cases with at least one claim canceled by the Board involve aDecision to Institute by the Board where the Board grants on averagethree grounds based on 35 U.S.C. §102 and two grounds based on 35 U.S.C.§103); 3. The correlation between the number of days before the date onwhich an oral hearing takes place and having at least one claim canceledby the Board (e.g., 56.2% of the cases with at least one claim canceledby the Board took no more than 252.2 days before the oral hearing tookplace); 4. The correlation between the filing of a preliminary responseand having at least one claim canceled by the Board (e.g., 84.2% of thecases with at least one claim canceled by the Board involve a PatentOwner filing a preliminary response to the Petitioner's petition); 5.The correlation between the filing of a patent owner response and havingat least one claim canceled by the Board (e.g., 12.2% of the cases withat least one claim canceled by the Board involve a Patent Owner filing apatent owner response to the Petitioner's petition); 6. The correlationbetween the filing of a Petitioner's reply to the Patent Owner's patentowner response and having at least one claim canceled by the Board(e.g., 78.8% of the cases with at least one claim canceled by the Boardinvolve a Petitioner's reply to the Patent Owner's patent ownerresponse); 7. The correlation between the filing of an opposition to thePetitioner's reply to the Patent Owner's patent owner response andhaving at least one claim canceled by the Board (e.g., 85.2% of thecases with at least one claim canceled by the Board involve the filingof an opposition to the Petitioner's reply to the Patent Owner's patentowner response); 8. The correlation between the filing of a motion forobservation regarding cross-examination of a petitioner's witness andhaving at least one claim canceled by the Board (e.g., 95.2% of thecases with at least one claim canceled by the Board involve the filingof a motion for observation regarding cross-examination of apetitioner's expert witness); 9. The correlation between the filing of aresponse to a motion for observation regarding cross- examination of apetitioner's witness and having at least one claim canceled by the Board(e.g., 97.8% of the cases with at least one claim canceled by the Boardinvolve the filing of a response to a motion for observation regardingcross-examination of a petitioner's expert witness); 10. The correlationbetween the filing of a motion for observation regardingcross-examination of a patent owner's witness and having at least oneclaim canceled by the Board (e.g.; 85.2% of the cases with at least oneclaim canceled by the Board involve the filing of a motion forobservation regarding cross-examination of a patent owner's expertwitness); 11. The correlation between the filing of response to a motionfor observation regarding cross- examination of a patent owner's witnessand having at least one claim canceled by the Board (e.g., 85.7% of thecases with at least one claim canceled by the Board involve the filingof a response to a motion for observation regarding cross-examination ofa patent owner's expert witness); 12. The correlation between thepetitioner's counsel and having at least one claim canceled by the Board(e.g., 92.2% of the cases handled by Attorney “Alex Chan” on behalf ofthe petitioner have at least one claim canceled by the Board); 13. Thecorrelation between the patent owner's counsel and having at least oneclaim canceled by the Board (e.g., 52.3% of the cases handled byAttorney “Alex Chan” on behalf of the patent owner have at least oneclaim canceled by the Board); 14. The correlation between the number ofthe Board's Order of the Proceedings and having at least one claimcanceled by the Board; 15. The correlation between the total number ofexperts and having at least one claim canceled by the Board (e.g., 84,2%of the cases with at least one claim canceled by the Board have engaged3 experts in support of the petitioner); 16. The correlation between thetotal number of depositions and having at least one claim canceled bythe Board (e.g., 92.2% of the cases with at least one claim canceled bythe Board involve the petitioner's counsel taking two depositions of thepatent owner's expert witness(es)); 17. The correlation between thetotal number of claims petitioned for review, total number of claimsgranted for review, and total number of claims canceled by the Board(e.g., 92.1% of the cases with at least one claim canceled by the Boardhave a Decision to Institute that grants on average 20 claims forreview, and a Petition that seeks review on 30 claims); 18. Thecorrelation between the total number of prior art references submittedby the petitioner and having at least one claim canceled by the Board(e.g., 80% of the cases with at least one claim canceled by the Boardinvolve the consideration of five prior art references submitted by thepetitioner, four of which are newly cited and one is in the existingrecord); 19. The correlation between the number of newly cited prior artreferences submitted by the petitioner and having at least one claimcanceled by the Board (e.g., 95.3% of the cases with at least one claimcanceled by the Board involve the submission of 2.1 newly cited priorart references by the petitioner); 20. The correlation between thenumber of prior art references cited during prosecution and relied uponby the petitioner and having at least one claim canceled by the Board(e.g., 98.1% of the cases with at least one claim canceled by the Boardinvolve the reliance on 3.2 prior art references cited duringprosecution); 21. The correlation between the total number of termsconstrued by the Board that favors Petitioner or Patent Owner and havingat least one claim canceled by the Board (e.g., 90.1% of the cases withat least one claim canceled by the Board involve the Board favoring thePetitioner 3.2 out of 5 terms on claim construction); 22. Thecorrelation between a filing of a motion to exclude and having at leastone claim canceled by the Board (e.g., 94.5% of the cases with at leastone claim canceled by the Board involve a filing of a motion to excludeby the Patent Owner, and the Board dismissing Patent Owner's motion toexclude 80.3% of the time); 23. The correlation between a filing of anopposition to a motion to exclude and having at least one claim canceledby the Board (e.g., 92.2% of the cases with at least one claim canceledby the Board involve a filing of an opposition to a motion to exclude);24. The correlation between a filing of a reply to an opposition to amotion to exclude and having at least one claim canceled by the Board(e.g., 92.4% of the cases with at least one claim canceled by the Boardinvolve a filing of a reply to an opposition to a motion to exclude);25. The correlation between the filing of a motion to amend and havingat least one claim canceled by the Board (e.g., 90.6% of the cases withat least one claim canceled by the Board do not have any filing of amotion to amend by the patent owner); 26. The correlation between afiling of an opposition to a motion to amend and having at least oneclaim canceled by the Board (e.g., 12.2% of the cases with at least oneclaim canceled by the Board involve a filing of an opposition to amotion to amend); 27. The correlation between a filing of a reply to anopposition to a motion to amend and having at least one claim canceledby the Board (e.g., 12.2% of the cases with at least one claim canceledby the Board involve a filing of a reply to an opposition to a motion toamend); 28. The correlation between a particular presiding judge andhaving at least one claim canceled by the Board; 29. The correlationbetween a particular legal argument/doctrine (or a combination of legalarguments/doctrines) and having at least one claim canceled by theBoard; 30. The correlation between a filing of a request for rehearingand having at least one claim canceled by the Board; 31. The correlationbetween a filing of a request for rehearing and having at least oneclaim canceled by the Board; 32. The correlation between a filing of arequest for oral hearing and having at least one claim canceled by theBoard; 33. The correlation between a filing of a joinder to join two ormore review proceedings and having at least one claim canceled by theBoard; and 34. The correlation between the technology underlying apatent in dispute and having at least one claim canceled by the Board.

As another example, trained models can include models that cover one ormore correlations between variables in the context of affirming at leastone claim of the subject patent such as, but are not limited to:

TABLE G 1. The correlation between the total number of grounds (e.g., 35U.S.C. §102 or 103) relied upon by the petitioner and having at leastone claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 23.2% of cases with at least oneclaim affirmed by the Board involve a petition seeking, on average, sixgrounds of rejection four of which are based on 35 U.S.C. §102 and twoof which are based on 35 U.S.C. §103); 2. The correlation between thetotal number of grounds e.g., 35 U.S.C. §102 or 103) granted for reviewby the Board and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g.,90% of cases with at least one claim canceled by the Board involve aDecision to Institute by the Board where the Board grants on averagethree grounds based on 35 U.S.C. §102 and two grounds based on 35 U.S.C.§103); 3. The correlation between the number of days before the date onwhich an oral hearing takes place and having at least one claim affirmedby the Board (e.g., 99.2% of the cases with at least one claim affirmedby the Board took no more than 121.4 days before the oral hearing tookplace); 4. The correlation between the filing of a preliminary responseand having at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 95.2% of thecases with at least one claim affirmed by the Board do not have a PatentOwner filing a preliminary response to the Petitioner's petition); 5.The correlation between the filing of a patent owner response and havingat least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 98.9% of the cases withat least one claim affirmed by the Board do not have a Patent Ownerfiling a patent owner response to the Petitioner's petition); 6. Thecorrelation between the filing of a Petitioner's reply to the PatentOwner's patent owner response and having at least one claim affirmed bythe Board (e.g., 82.9% of the cases with at least one claim affirmed bythe Board do not have any Petitioner's reply to the Patent Owner'spatent owner response); 7. The correlation between the filing of anopposition to the Petitioner's reply to the Patent Owner's patent ownerresponse and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g.,96.8% of the cases with at least one claim affirmed by the Board do nothave any filing of an opposition to the Petitioner's reply to the PatentOwner's patent owner response); 8. The correlation between the filing ofa motion for observation regarding cross-examination of a petitioner'switness and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 95.8%of the cases with at least one claim affirmed by the Board do not haveany filing of a motion for observation regarding cross-examination of apetitioner's expert witness); 9. The correlation between the filing of aresponse to a motion for observation regarding cross- examination of apetitioner's witness and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board(e.g., 91.1% of the cases with at least one claim affirmed by the Boarddo not have any filing of a response to a motion for observationregarding cross-examination of a petitioner's expert witness); 10. Thecorrelation between the filing of a motion for observation regardingcross-examination of a patent owner's witness and having at least oneclaim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 99.2% of the cases with at least oneclaim affirmed by the Board do not have any filing of a motion forobservation regarding cross-examination of a patent owner's expertwitness); 11. The correlation between the filing of response to a motionfor observation regarding cross- examination of a patent owner's witnessand having at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 94.7% of thecases with at least one claim affirmed by the Board do not have anyfiling of a response to a motion for observation regardingcross-examination of a patent owner's expert witness); 12. Thecorrelation between the petitioner's counsel and having at least oneclaim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 7.8% of the cases handled by Attorney“Alex Chan”on behalf of the petitioner have at least one claim affirmedby the Board); 13. The correlation between the patent owner's counseland having at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 85.2% of thecases handled by Attorney “Alex Chan”on behalf of the patent owner haveat least one claim affirmed by the Board); 14. The correlation betweenthe number of the Board's Order of the Proceedings and having at leastone claim affirmed by the Board; 15. The correlation between the totalnumber of experts and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board(e.g., 78.1% of the cases with at least one claim affirmed by the Boardhave engaged 2 experts in support of the patent owner); 16. Thecorrelation between the total number of depositions and having at leastone claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 80% of the cases with at leastone claim affirmed by the Board involve the patent owner's counseltaking three depositions of the petitioner's expert witness(es)); 17.The correlation between the total number of claims petitioned for reviewby the petitioner, total number of claims granted for review, and totalnumber of claims affirmed by the Board (e.g., 80.3% of the cases with atleast one claim affirmed by the Board have a Decision to Institute thatgrants on average 20 claims for review, and a Petition that seeks reviewon 30 claims); 18. The correlation between the total number of prior artreferences submitted by the petitioner and having at least one claimaffirmed by the Board (e.g.; 90.6% of the cases with at least one claimaffirmed by the Board involve the consideration of four prior artreferences submitted by the petitioner, one of which are newly cited andthree are in the existing record); 19. The correlation between thenumber of newly cited prior art references submitted by the petitionerand having at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 96.3% of thecases with at least one claim granted review by the Board involve thesubmission of 0.9 newly cited prior art references by the petitioner);20. The correlation between the number of prior art references citedduring prosecution and relied upon by the petitioner and having at leastone claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 99.6% of the cases with at leastone claim granted review by the Board involve the reliance on 1.2 priorart references cited during prosecution); 21. The correlation betweenthe total number of terms construed by the Board that favors Petitioneror Patent Owner and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board(e.g., 76.1% of the cases with at least one claim affirmed by the Boardinvolve the Board favoring the Patent Owner 4.3 out of 5 terms on claimconstruction); 22. The correlation between a filing of a motion toexclude and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 98.2%of the cases with at least one claim affirmed by the Board do not haveany filing of a motion to exclude by the Patent Owner, and the Boarddismissing Patent Owner's motion to exclude 99.2% of the time); 23. Thecorrelation between a filing of an opposition to a motion to exclude andhaving at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 96.3% of thecases with at least one claim affirmed by the Board do not have anyfiling of an opposition to a motion to exclude); 24. The correlationbetween a filing of a reply to an opposition to a motion to exclude andhaving at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 95.3% of thecases with at least one claim affirmed by the Board do not have anyfiling of a reply to an opposition to a motion to exclude); 25. Thecorrelation between the filing of a motion to amend and having at leastone claim affirmed by the Board (e.g., 98.2% of the cases with at leastone claim affirmed by the Board involve a filing of a motion to amend bythe patent owner); 26. The correlation between a filing of an oppositionto a motion to amend and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board(e.g., 52.2% of the cases with at least one claim affirmed by the Boarddo not have a filing of an opposition to a motion to amend); 27. Thecorrelation between a filing of a reply to an opposition to a motion toamend and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board (e.g.. 98.3%of the cases with at least one claim affirmed by the Board do not haveany filing of a reply to an opposition to a motion to amend); 28. Thecorrelation between a particular presiding judge and having at least oneclaim affirmed by the Board; 29. The correlation between a particularlegal argument/doctrine or a combination of legal arguments/doctrines)and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board; 30. The correlationbetween a filing of a request for rehearing and having at least oneclaim affirmed by the Board; 31. The correlation between a filing of arequest for rehearing and having at least one claim affirmed by theBoard; 32. The correlation between a filing of a request for oralhearing and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board; 33. Thecorrelation between a filing of a joinder to join two or more reviewproceedings and having at least one claim affirmed by the Board; and 34.The correlation between the technology underlying a patent in disputeand having at least one claim affirmed by the Board.

In some implementations, each trained model can consider and beassociated with one analytical or statistical model (e.g., thecorrelation between the total number of grounds relied upon by thepetitioner and having at least one claim affirmed or canceled by theBoard). In other implementations, each trained model can consider and beassociated with multiple analytical or statistical models (e.g., thecorrelation between the total number of grounds relied upon by thepetitioner and having at least one claim affirmed or canceled and thecorrelation between the total number of prior art references relied uponby the petitioner and having at least one claim affirmed or canceled bythe Board).

In some implementations, the data analysis system 300 can include ascoring engine 312 to perform scoring. Scoring can include the use ofthe trained analytical or statistical model 310 to provide predictionsand recommendations. For example, the trained analytical or statisticalmodel 310, the prediction parameters 314, and the prediction data 316can be input to the scoring engine 312. The trained analytical orstatistical model 310 also can include one or more sets of deployedrules that were generated by the model engine 302.

The prediction parameters 314 can include parameters that can be inputto the scoring engine 312 to control the scoring of the trainedanalytical or statistical model 310 against prediction data 316. In someimplementations, the prediction parameters 314 can include a subset ofdata for a plurality of cases whose data have previously been extractedby the data mining engine 208. This subset of data can be the same ordifferent from those used for the training parameters 304. For example,the prediction parameters 314 can employ the same (e.g., the totalnumber of claims being challenged and the names of the presiding judgesassigned to review proceeding “X”) or different (e.g., the total numberof claims in the subject patent, and the names of the legal counselrepresenting the petitioner and patent owner) variables than those usedto train and develop the initial model created by the model engine 302.

In some implementations, the prediction parameters 314 and theprediction data 316 can include data extracted from a different set oflegal documents (e.g., different from those used to provide the trainingparameters 304 and training data 306) having been applied with one ormore predetermined patterns (e.g., by the pattern module 207) toidentify a second set of reference data. In some implementations, theone or more predetermined patterns can be the same or different as thoseapplied to the initial set of legal documents used to provide thetraining parameters 304 and training data 306. The one or moreanalytical or statistical models associated with the trained model 310can then be adjusted based on the second set of reference data via thefeedback process via the scored data 318 to the model engine 302.

In some implementations, the prediction parameters 314 and theprediction data 316 can function as test data for fine-tuning thetrained models 310. For example, the prediction parameters 314 and theprediction data 316 can be used to refine or fine-tune the trained model310 via, for example, Random Forest analysis as previously discussed(e.g., by the statistics module 226) to improve the accuracy of thetrained models (e.g., at least one claim will be granted review,canceled, or affirmed by the Board).

In some implementations, the scoring engine 312 can select a subset(e.g., as opposed to the entire set) of the prediction parameters 314and/or prediction data 312 in generating the scored data 318, and filterout parameters and data that do not meet certain criteria (e.g.,insufficient data for a particular variable).

In some implementations, the scored data 318 generated by the scoringengine 312 can be used by the prediction/recommendation engine 320 toindicate a probability that a patent will be ruled valid or invalid, orthat at least one claim of the patent will be affirmed or canceled bythe Board. In some implementations, the scored data 318 can also be usedto indicate a score assigned by the scoring engine 312 to a trainedmodel 310 to indicate a reliability of the trained model or analyticalor statistical information associated with the trained model to theprediction/recommendation engine 320. Specifically, these informationcan be used by the prediction/recommendation engine 320 in determiningwhat, if any, prediction or recommendation 322 in the form of actionabletasks (to be discussed in greater detail below) can be proposed to auser. For example, if the trained model 310 fails to meet a particularthreshold of reliability (e.g., based on the scored data), theprediction/recommendation engine 320 can give little to no considerationto that trained model in proposing one or more actionable tasks (e.g.,while relying upon other trained models that meet such criteria ingenerating such tasks).

In some implementations, the scoring engine 312 can identify apredetermined threshold that sets the baseline for the trained model310, the prediction data 316, and the prediction parameters 314 in orderto determine whether these data are reliable for use by theprediction/recommendation engine 320. Where the data are reliable, thescored data 318 including the overall probability indicating thelikelihood that the subject patent will be ruled invalid or valid, orthat one or more claims will be canceled or affirmed by the Board can beforwarded to the prediction/recommendation engine 320 for furtherprocessing.

The trained model 310 can fail to meet a predetermined threshold for avariety of reasons. For example, the trained model 310 might fail apredetermined threshold where there's insufficient data in establishingthe trained model 310, or insufficient prediction data in establishingthe reliability of the trained model 310. The trained model 310 can alsofail because its underlying statistics fail to satisfy the predictiondata 316 (e.g., where the output of the trained model 310 does not matchthe prediction data 316).

To improve reliability of the trained model 310, in someimplementations, the scoring engine 312 can also remove or filter outone or more analytical or statistical models from the trained model 310if a score assigned to the trained model is below a particular thresholdor does not meet certain criteria. For example, where one of the trainedmodels 310 is associated with an analytical or statistical model andthis analytical or statistical model is unreliable because the amount oftrained data 306 used to build the model is insufficient (e.g., asdetermined by the scoring engine 312), the analytical or statisticalmodel can be removed from the data analysis system 220 (e.g., withoutreaching the prediction/recommendation engine 320).

As another example, where the trained model 310 is associated with threeanalytical or statistical models and the scoring engine 312 determinesthat one of them does not meet the criteria, the analytical orstatistical model that does not meet the criteria can be removed by thedata analysis system 220 while the other two analytical or statisticalmodels that do meet the system criteria can further be processed by theprediction/recommendation engine 320.

In some implementations, the prediction parameters 314 and/or predictiondata 316 also can include another client input. This client input caninclude user data and desired results data. User data can include datarelating to the type of predictions and recommendations requested by theuser, data relating to constraints on the generatedpredictions/recommendations desired by the user, or relating to specificactions the user is currently taking that define the context in whichthe analytical or statistical model is occurring, as will be discussedin FIGS. 10A-10D. The desired results data can include definitions ofthe types of predictions and recommendations and constraints on thepredictions and recommendations desired by the data mining/analysissystem 102.

Using the example given above, user data can include informationrelating to a particular case proceeding, and the desired results datacan indicate that the desired result is a recommendation for a legalcounsel or filing of a particular brief or motion that would enhance thewinning percentage of a particular party (e.g., percentage that a partycan successfully seek the Board to affirm or cancel at least one patentclaim).

As already discussed above, the trained model 310 can be defined interms of a function of input variables producing predictions andrecommendations (e.g., dependent variable(s)) based on the inputvariables. The function can be evaluated using the input prediction data316 and scores can be generated. In some implementations, the scores canindicate how closely the function defined by the analytical orstatistical model matches the prediction data, how much confidence canbe placed in the predictions and recommendations, how likely the outputpredictions and recommendations from the model contain false positives,and other analytical or statistical indicators (e.g., via the statisticsmodule 226).

In some implementations, the scored data 318 can be fed back to themodel engine 302 to further refine the trained models 310. This feedbackprocess can allow the trained model 310 to be adjusted and refined sothat the trained models 310 can be improved.

In some implementations, where more than one model is developed andtrained, the scoring engine 312 or the model engine 302 also can assigndifferent weights to each trained model. For example, more weights canbe given to a trained model associated with the correlation between thetotal number of prior art references and having at least one claimaffirmed or canceled by the Board than a trained model associated withthe correlation between the total number of depositions and having atleast one claim affirmed or canceled by the Board. In so doing, thisweighting approach allows the trained models 310 to closely match theprediction data and yields higher confidence in the predicted results.

Referring back to FIG. 8, at 810, the validity or invalidity of thepatent can be assessed based on the one or more analytical orstatistical models, and at 812, the assessment of the validity orinvalidity of the patent can be displayed to one or more users. Asdiscussed above, the prediction/recommendation engine 320, in assessingthe validity or invalidity of the patent, can use the scored data 318 todetermine a probability that the patent will be ruled valid, invalid,partially valid, or partially invalid. For example, theprediction/recommendation engine 320 can evaluate the scored data 318,and determine that there is 67.7% chance that all claims will becanceled, 89.4% chance that at least one claim will be canceled, and10.6% chance that at least one claim will be affirmed by the Board.These probabilities can then be displayed to the user via a dashboard.

In some implementations, the prediction/recommendation engine 320, inassessing the validity or invalidity of the patent can identify, basedon the one or more trained models 310, predictions and recommendations322 in the form of one or more actionable tasks that the one or moreusers can perform to increase or decrease the probability that thepatent will be ruled valid, invalid, partially valid, or partiallyinvalid (or at least one claim will be affirmed or canceled) by theBoard.

As an example, based on the trained models 310 and scored data 318, theprediction/recommendation engine 320 can assess that “The currentprobability of having at least one claim canceled by the Board is at20.2%. Lawyer ‘A’ has a 85.2% of likelihood of convincing the Board tocancel at least one patent claim.” Based on this assessment, theprediction/recommendation engine 320 can identify a proposed action oractionable task that “Our system recommends that Lawyer ‘A’ from lawfirm ‘B’ be retained as counsel in order to increase the likelihood ofhaving the Board cancel at least one patent claim (e.g., from theinitial 20.2% to 85.2%).” The prediction/recommendation engine 320 alsocan make alternative suggestion that Lawyer ‘C’ from law firm ‘D’ beretained if Lawyer A is unavailable (e.g., due to conflicts ofinterest).

In some implementations, historical data associated with a plurality oflegal documents associated with the plurality of legal cases can beretrieved. Each legal document can include a plurality of correspondingattributes (e.g., independent and dependent variables). The historicaldata can indicate one or more historical trends associated with theplurality of corresponding attributes. The validity or invalidity of thepatent can be assessed based on the one or more analytical orstatistical models and the one or more historical trends.

For example, historical data from other legal documents associated withother legal cases such as the name of a petitioner (e.g., real party ofinterest of the petitioner including all licensor/licensee information),the name of a patent owner (e.g., real party of interest of the patentowner including all licensor/licensee information), the name of counseland/or law firm representing the petitioner and/or patent owner, thetotal number of 102/103 grounds requested by the petitioner in apetition, the name of any expert witness whose declaration is beingrelied upon in the petition, the identification of all relevant priorart cited in the petition, identification of terms with the petitioner'sclaim construction, legal authority or case law cited by the petitioner,and legal arguments advanced by the petitioner can be retrieved from thedata sources 110/112 and repositories 104/106. These legal cases caninclude review proceedings that are related or unrelated to the subjectpatent. Trained models associated with these historical data can beanalyzed to identify one or more historical trends.

For example, the data analysis system 220 can determine that patentsrelating to semiconductor technology (or more specifically, SRAM memory)examined through the review proceeding in the past fifteen (15) monthshave a 72.2% cancellation rate of at least one claim by the Board (e.g.,based on statistics gathered from these other legal cases). These trends(72.2% and past fifteen (15) months) can be considered and factored intothe assessment (e.g., prediction and recommendation) of the validity orinvalidity of the subject patent in addition to the one or more modelsbeing developed and trained by the model engine 302 (e.g., the modelengine 302 can use these historical trends as part of the trainingparameters 304 and training data 306 in training and developing thetrained models 310).

As discussed above, in some implementations, the actionable tasks can beidentified based on the existing correlations between the existingvariables as discussed above. For example, where a trained modelindicates a direct correlation between the number of expert declarationsubmitted by the petitioner and the number of claims ultimately canceledby the Board (e.g., where 98% of the review proceedings involving atleast one claim canceled have at least one expert declaration submittedby the petitioner), this trained model can be considered and associatedwith other trained models in generating the overall probability that atleast one claim will be canceled or affirmed by the Board.

In some implementations, this identification can be based on the trainedmodel associated with the correlation between the identities of thelegal counsel and the winning record of the legal counsel. The trainedmodel, as discussed above, can employ historical analysis (e.g. via thetraining parameters 304, training data 306, prediction parameters 314,and prediction data 316) to determine this correlation (e.g., legalcounsel “X” has represented a petitioner ten times of which nine involvea patent that have at least one claim canceled by the Board).

As another example, the prediction/recommendation engine 320 can assess,based on the trained model 310 and scored data 310, that “Lawyer ‘X’ hasa 14.4% of likelihood of convincing Judge Smith to affirm at least oneclaim.” The prediction/recommendation engine 320 also might gather fromthe trained model 310 that there is a strong correlation between filinga motion to exclude evidence (e.g., the opposing party's expertdeclaration) and the likelihood that at least one claim will be canceledby the Board. Based on these assessments, the prediction/recommendationengine 320 can identify a proposed action or actionable task that“Lawyer X should file a motion to exclude the opposing party's expertdeclaration, and if Lawyer X wins the motion to exclude, the predictedprobability that the petition successfully seeks the Board to cancel atleast one claim can increase by 76.6% to 91%.”

In some implementations, the proposed actionable tasks identified by theprediction/recommendation engine 320 can be displayed to the user of thedata management system 100 via a dashboard. For example, as shown inFIG. 10A. the user can be presented with one or more proposed actionabletasks 1002 for a petitioner. The proposed actionable task 1002 can beshown via a dashboard 1000 when the user logs onto the data managementsystem 100.

Here, the actionable task 1002 proposed by the prediction/recommendationengine 320 indicates “File a motion to exclude the opposing party'sexpert declaration.” The proposed actionable task 1002 can specify aparticular stage for which the actionable task 1002 is proposed. In theexample shown, the proposed actionable task 102 refers to a “Trial”stage 1008, meaning that if the proposed actionable task 1002 wereperformed by the petitioner during the trial phase (e.g., after theBoard has decided to institute trial on the subject patent), then thepredicted probability 1006 of “31.2%” can be affected.

In some implementations, the predicted probability 1006 can be initiallydetermined by an analytical or statistical model (e.g., trained model310). In some implementations, the predicted probability 1006 can be arefined probability that has been refined based on the scored data 318.As discussed above, the data analysis system 220 can continuously updatethe training parameters 304, training data 306. prediction parameters314, and prediction data 316 as more legal documents are received andextracted. This continuous process can be formed as part of a machinelearning technique (e.g., as performed by the machine learning module230) that allows the data analysis system 220 to analyze and refine thetrained model 310. In general, machine learning allows the use of a setof documents as a training set that yields a particular analytical orstatistical model. Applying this analytical or statistical model to anew set of legal documents can allow the model to be retrained to getimproved results.

In some implementations, a selectable input can be received from a userselecting a corresponding actionable task. When the selectable input isreceived, the validity or invalidity of the patent can be reassessed,and a new probability displayed to the user based on the reassessment.

For example, each proposed actionable task can be associated with aselectable input 1004. The selectable input 1004, when selected, cantrigger an update to the corresponding predicted probability 1006. Forexample, when the selectable input 1004 is selected (e.g., selectedinput 1022), the first predicted probability 1006 is reassessed andchanged from “31.2%” to a first new predicted probability 1024 of“68.5%.” This means that if a motion to exclude the opposing party'sexpert declaration were filed, the predicted probability that at leastone claim will be canceled will increase to 68.5%, as indicated by thefirst new predicted probability 1024. The first new predictedprobability 1024 can also indicate the amount changed (e.g., “37.3%”) toallow users to immediately realize the significance of the proposedactionable task.

As another example, a second proposed actionable task can be shown inaddition to the first proposed actionable task 1002; namely, a secondproposed actionable task 1012 to “Submit an expert declaration.” Thesecond proposed actionable task 1012, as shown, refers to a “Petition”stage 1010, meaning that the proposed actionable task 1012 is proposedfor execution during the petition phase (e.g., prior to the Boardissuing a Decision (Not) to Institute Trial).

Similar to the first proposed actionable task 1002, the second proposedactionable task 1012 is also associated with a selectable input 1014. Toimmediately realize how the second proposed actionable task 1012 canimpact the overall predicted probability, the selectable input 1014 canbe selected (e.g., as selected input 1026) to initiate the reassessment.

When the selectable input 1014 is selected, the corresponding secondpredicted probability 1016 is reassessed and changed from “31.2%” to asecond new predicted probability 1028 of “78.5%.” This means that if anexpert declaration were submitted by the petitioner, the predictedprobability that at least one claim will be canceled by the Board willincrease to 8.5%, as indicated by the second new predicted probability1028. Like the first new predicted probability 1024, the second newpredicted probability 1028 can also indicate the amount changed (e.g.,“10.0%”) to allow users to immediately realize the magnitude of theproposed actionable task.

In sum, a user selecting a proposed actionable task can allow theprediction/recommendation engine 320 to re-analyze the trained models310 and the scored data 318, update its predictions and recommendations,and output a new predicted probability. A selected recommendation 322 inthe form of a selected actionable task can be fed back to the scoreddata 318 to be forwarded back to the prediction/recommendation engine320 to perform the new analysis.

In some implementations, each actionable task proposed to the user andcorresponding effect on the new predicted probability can both bedetermined in advance. When the user selects a proposed actionable task,its corresponding outcome can then be retrieved and integrated with thecurrent predicted probability to provide an updated predictedprobability for user presentation. In so doing, this technique canremove any system delay that can be caused by the feedback process tothereby improve the system's robustness.

In some implementations, where multiple selectable inputs are selected(e.g., where the first proposed actionable task 1002 and the secondproposed actionable task 1012 are both selected), the overallprobability reflected on the dashboard 1000 can be shown as anaccumulated sum. In the example shown, the second new predictedprobability 1028 is shown as an accumulated sum based on the first newpredicted probability 1024 (e.g., the increase of “10.0%” associatedwith the second proposed actionable task 1012 is stacked onto the firstnew predicted probability 1024 and shown as an accumulated predictedprobability of “78.5%”).

If desired, the selectable inputs 1004 and 1014 can also separatelyselected to realize individual probability. For example, the second newpredicted probability can be shown as “41.2%” instead of “78.5%” whenthe selectable input 1014 is selected separately from the firstselectable input 1004.

In some implementations, the predicted probability as determined by oneor more trained models can be displayed to the user. For example, thedashboard 1000 can display, at section 1029, the predicted winningprobability for the Petitioner (e.g., 31.2%) and the Patent Owner (e.g.,68.8%). In some implementations, the predicted winning probability canbe dynamically changed in real time as new documents are received (e.g.,those associated with the current proceeding, or those associated withother proceedings related or unrelated to the subject patent) and modelsrefined based on updated training parameters and data (e.g., trainingparameters and data 304/306), updated prediction parameters and data(e.g., prediction parameters and data 314/316), or the scored data(e.g., scored data 318).

In addition to the predicted winning probability, the probability afterone or more proposed actionable tasks are selected by the user (e.g.,selected input 1022 and selected input 1026) can also be displayed. Inthe example shown, with the selected input 1022 and selected input 1026,the updated probability can be reflected as “78.5%” for the Petitioner,and “21.5%” for the Patent Owner.

In some implementations, at section 1029, the predicted winningprobability can be separated by stages. For example, the predictedwinning probability associated with the petition stage and thatassociated with the trial stage can be shown separately. Similarly, thepredicted probability associated with the petition stage and thatassociated with the trial stage after the one or more proposedactionable tasks are selected can be shown separately.

For example, temporarily referring to FIG. 10C, at section 1035, thepredicted winning probability for each of the Petitioner and PatentOwner can be separated from the probability that takes intoconsideration of one or more actionable tasks proposed for the petitionstage, and the probability that takes into consideration of one or moreactionable tasks proposed for the trial stage. A predicted winningprobability that takes into consideration of one or more actionabletasks proposed for both the petition stage and the trial stage can alsobe displayed at section 1035.

Referring back to FIG. 10A, each proposed actionable task can bedisplayed to the user on the dashboard 1000. In some implementations, adropdown menu can be displayed to the user. The dropdown menu caninclude some or all of proposed actionable tasks from which the user canselect to visualize the impact of the selected actionable task on theoverall predicted probability.

For example, as shown in FIG. 10B, a dropdown menu 1040 can be providedby the prediction/recommendation engine 320. The dropdown menu 1040 caninclude a list of proposed actionable tasks 1040. In the example show,the dropdown menu 1040 can include “File a motion to exclude PatentOwner's expert declaration,” “Argue claim construction on at least 4terms,” “File an opposition to Patent Owner's motion to amend,” “Argueinherency,” “File a Motion to Exclude Patent Owner's exhibits,” “Requestoral hearing,” and “File an expert declaration in support of thePetitioner's claim construction.”

As discussed above, each of the proposed actionable tasks 1042 can beassociated with an individual or combined trained model (e.g., trainedmodel 310). In some implementations, a selected or entire set ofactionable tasks 1042 can be proposed based on, for example, thestrength or sufficiency of their corresponding model (e.g., using scoreddata 318). In some implementations, a selected or entire set ofactionable tasks 1042 also can be randomly proposed (e.g., where themodels are all equally satisfactory as indicated by the scored data318).

While the foregoing implementations are described with respect toincreasing the overall predicted probability (e.g., when the firstproposed actionable task 1002 and/or the second proposed actionable task1012 is/are selected), it should be noted that the predicted probabilitycan be result-dependent. More specifically, depending on the actionabletask proposed by the prediction/recommendation engine 320 and selectedby the user, the new predicted probability also can be decreased wherethe prediction/recommendation 320 predicts that the selected proposedactionable task can have an adverse impact to the user's litigationstrategy.

For example, where the analytical or statistical model associated witharguing claim construction on more than four terms indicates that thepresiding judges have a statistical tendency to affirm three or moreclaims where the petitioner argues claim construction on four or moreterms, the prediction/recommendation engine 320 can determine that suchan actionable task 1047, if taken by the petitioner, can adversely lowerthe petitioner's chance of success in canceling more than three claims.

In this example, when the user has selected (via cursor 1043) theactionable task “Argue claim construction on at least 4 terms” and theselectable input 1048, the prediction/recommendation engine 320 cananalyze the trained model associated with this selected task and thecorresponding scored data to predict the substantive effect that thisactionable task could impact the overall probability negatively (e.g.,“−5.1%”). This impact can be shown along with the predicted probability1049 (e.g., “26.1%”) to the user to provide a complete predictiveanalysis of the selected actionable task.

If desired, multiple dropdown menus (e.g., a second dropdown menu 1046)can also be presented to the user to allow the user to select more thanone proposed actionable task. In so doing, the data analysis system 220can help guide the user's litigation strategy and institute cost-savingmeasures to avoid expensive and unnecessary legal work product that doesnot have any meaningful impact to the user's case proceeding whilehelping the user maximize on the chance to have at least one claimaffirmed or canceled by the Board. Such predictive analytic helps usersunlock the true value of business intelligence by making criticalstatistical information transparent, meaningful, usable and actionableat any phase of the review proceeding.

In some implementations, a dropdown menu can also be implemented for the“Stage” section so that the user can toggle between varying stages(e.g., trial or petition) and choose corresponding actionable taskstailored for the selected stage. For example, where the user hasselected the “Petition” stage, the data analysis system 220 can displayone or more proposed actionable tasks specific for the selected“Petition” stage. Similarly, where the user has selected the “Trial”stage, the data analysis system 220 can display one or more proposedactionable tasks specific for the selected “Trial” stage.

It should be noted that the implementations shown in FIG. 10B can alsobe applied to other implementations shown in other figures (e.g., thoseshown in FIG. 10A or FIG. 10D discussed below). In sum, implementationsdescribed in various figures can be applied in whole or in part to otherfigures, and should not be construed as limiting to only those figuresin which the implementations are described.

In some implementations, the data management system 100 can receive auser input associated with an actionable task. Based on the user input,it can be determined whether the user input associated with theactionable task relates to the one or more existing analytical orstatistical or trained models. A separate analytical or statisticalmodel can be developed by the model engine 302 based on the user inputassociated with the actionable task if it is determined that the userinput associated with the actionable task is unrelated to the one ormore developed trained models. The validity or invalidity of the patentcan be reassessed based on the one or more developed trained models andthe separate trained model.

For example, the data analysis system 220 can provide an input fieldthrough which a user can manually enter a particular actionable task,and seek the data analysis system 220 to evaluate the impact of thisactionable task on the predicted winning probability. As an example,referring to FIG. 10C, an input field 1032 can be displayed on thedashboard 1000. The input field 1032 allows a user to enter a document,exhibit, particular type of evidence, or actionable task. Once the userenters a user input and clicks on the “Submit” button 1037, the dataanalysis system 220 can parse and analyze the user input to determinewhether one or more already-developed trained models associated with theuser input exist. To do so, the data analysis system 220 can parse theuser input using a variety of techniques, such as natural languageprocessing, machine learning, sentiment analysis, relational extraction,or computational linguistics models.

For example, if the user has entered “Motion to Exclude,” the dataanalysis system 220 can parse and analyze the user input to determinethat the user is seeking to assess how a “Motion to Exclude” to excludecertain types of evidence submitted by the opposing party, if filed,could affect the predicted winning probability 1036. In this example,the data analysis system 220 can determine that a trained modelassociated with “Motion to Exclude” already exists (e.g., a correlationbetween a motion to amend and having at least one claim affirmed by theBoard) and has already been developed by the model engine 302.

If one or more train models related to the user input exist, the dataanalysis system 220 can process the user input based on the existingtrained model(s) (e.g., by integrating the identified trained model withthe trained models used to determine the initial predicted winningprobability 1036).

In some implementations, if the data analysis system 220 determines thatno trained model related to the user input exists, the data analysissystem 220 can, in real time, request the data analysis system 220 toimmediately analyze the new mined data to develop a trained modelassociated with the document, exhibit, or actionable task specified inthe user input.

As an example, assuming the user has entered “filing of an expertdeclaration as a petitioner” in the input field 1032 but no trainedmodel has been developed that models the correlation between the expertdeclaration and the petitioner's predicted winning probability (e.g., atleast one claim that will be canceled by the Board), the data miningsystem 202 can mine the documents in the data sources 110/112 andrepositories 104/106 for documents relating to “expert declaration”.Data mined from these documents can then be sent to the data analysissystem 220 for analysis in a manner similar to those described withrespect to FIG. 3 (e.g., one or more trained models can be created viathe model engine 302, scored by the scoring engine 312, andprediction/recommendation 322 provided by the prediction/recommendationengine 320). Resulting predictions and recommendations can then beprovided back to the user in real-time (e.g.,

Where a trained model associated with the data requested via the userinput does not exist, the selectable input 1034 can remain deactivated(e.g., graphically grayed out) so that the probability 1036 asoriginally predicted by the data analysis system 220 remains unchanged.Where an associated trained model exists, the selectable input 1034 canbe activated (e.g., similar to selectable input 1038) to allow for userselection. When the selectable input 1034 is selected, the probability1036 can then be correspondingly updated based on the associated trainedmodel.

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can intelligentlyprovide an autocomplete option that includes one or more recommendationsin the form of one or more proposed actionable tasks 1033. As the userenters the user input, the data analysis system 220 can propose one ormore relevant actionable tasks to the user before the user completesentering the user input. The autocomplete option can be used to help auser recognize all the relevant actionable tasks that can be selectedfor predictive analysis. For example, when the user manually enters“File A Motion”, the autocomplete option running in the background cantrigger a display of one or more relevant actionable tasks that matchthe user input (e.g., “File a Motion to Exclude”, “File a Motion forObservation regarding cross examination”, “File a Motion to SealDocument filed by the Patent Owner”, and “File a Motion to Strike PatentOwner's Expert Declaration”).

In some implementations, the one or more relevant actionable tasks 1033can be associated with one or more trained models that have previouslybeen created by the data analysis system 220 but not yet taken intoconsideration in generating the predicted probability 1036.

For example, the probability 1036 can be generated based on a subset(e.g., trained models associated with “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”) of a group(e.g., trained models associated with “A” through “F”) of trained modelsdeveloped by the model engine 302. In this example, each of the othertrained models not yet utilized (e.g., trained models associated with“E” and “F”) then can be provided as an individual option in the form ofa recommendation (e.g., “File a Motion to Exclude”, “File a Motion forObservation regarding cross examination”, “File a Motion to SealDocument filed by the Patent Owner”, and “File a Motion to Strike PatentOwner's Expert Declaration”). In so doing, this option allows the userto realize the individualized impact of each individual actionable taskon the overall predicted winning probability 1036 (e.g., as opposed toone that is generated based on all trained models without any possibleway to realize how each of these trained models affects the overallpredicted winning probability 1036).

In some implementations, the one or more relevant actionable tasks 1033can also include those that do not yet have a corresponding trainedmodel, but which, if selected, can request the data mining system 202and the data analysis system 220 to mine the existing documents anddevelop the corresponding trained model in the manner discussed above.

FIG. 10D shows an example dashboard associated with proposed actionabletasks for a patent owner. As shown in FIG. 10D, the dashboard 1000 canalso display proposed actionable tasks for a patent owner. In someimplementations, the dashboard 1000 can display proposed actionabletasks for both a petitioner and a patent owner concurrently. In otherimplementations, the proposed actionable tasks for both a petitioner anda patent owner can be shown separately or sequentially.

In some implementations, the dashboard 1000 can prompt the user toidentify the user's viewing interest (e.g., as a petitioner or a patentowner) via a selectable input. Based on the user's selection, thedashboard 1000 can display the proposed actionable tasks accordingly.For example, the dashboard 1000 can provide a selectable button 1051 toallow the user to manually toggle and identify the corresponding sets ofproposed actionable tasks to be displayed. In the example shown, theuser can select to view proposed actionable tasks for a patent owner viathe selectable button 1051.

When the selectable button 1051 for the patent owner is selected,proposed actionable tasks 1052 and 1062 for the patent owner can bedisplayed on the dashboard 1000. Similar to those shown in FIG. 10A,each proposed actionable task 1052/1062 can be associated with aselectable input 1054/1064, respectively. The selectable input(s)1054/1064, when selected, can trigger an update to the predictedprobability 1056/1066.

For example, when the selectable input 1054 is selected (e.g., selectedinput 1072), the first predicted probability 1056 changes from “10.8%”to a first new predicted probability 1074 of “35.9%.” This means that ifthe petition addresses the petitioner's obviousness arguments under 35U.S.C. 103, the probability that at least one claim will be canceled bythe Board will increase to 35.9%, as indicated by the first newpredicted probability 1074. The first new predicted probability 1074 canalso indicate the amount changed (e.g., “25.1%”) to allow users toimmediately realize the impact of such an argument when made.

As discussed above, where multiple selectable inputs are selected (e.g.,where the first proposed actionable task 1002 and the second proposedactionable task 1012 are both selected), the overall predictedprobability reflected on the dashboard 1000 can be shown as anaccumulated sum. In the example shown, because the second selectableinput 1064 is not selected, the second new predicted probability 1076remains unchanged and is shown as an accumulated sum based on the firstnew predicted probability 1074 (e.g., that does not consider any changein difference when the second selectable input 1064 is selected).

Other proposed actionable tasks such as a service, submission or filingof any document stored in the repositories 104/106 as well as thosediscussed above, such as without limitation, a preliminary response by apatent owner of the patent, a motion to amend at least one claim of thepatent, a motion to exclude evidence, a request to change lead or backupcounsel, a predetermined number of prior art references, a predeterminednumber of terms requested for claim construction, and an observation oncross examination also are contemplated.

It should be noted that while the implementations with respect toproposed actionable tasks for a petitioner and a patent owner areseparately described, features and implementations described in eitherthe petitioner or the patent owner are equally applicable to the otherone of the petitioner or the patent owner. For example, the dropdownmenus 1040/1046 described in FIG. 10B are equally applicable in FIG.10D.

As discussed previously, argument-based actionable tasks also can beincluded as proposed actionable tasks. For example, as shown in FIG.10B, the list of proposed actionable tasks 1042 can include theargument-based actionable task “Argue ‘Inherency.’” In someimplementations, the argument module 232 can be used to extract one ormore such legal arguments from the documents residing in therepositories 104/106, which can then be used by the model developmentmodule 228 to develop a trained model for use in the predictive analysisprocess by the prediction/recommendation engine 320.

In some implementations, one or more patterns containing argument-basedwords (e.g., “Petitioner argues” or “Patent Owner contends”) can beapplied by the pattern module 207 to the documents residing in therepositories 104/106 in order to extract words, phrases, and paragraphsand associated text relating to legal doctrines or arguments (e.g.,legal doctrines or arguments pertaining to “inherency”, “teaching away,”“commercial success”, “long-felt need”, “inadmissible evidence”,“hearsay,” “untimely objection to evidence”, “reliance on licensingactivities as evidence of non-obviousness”) by the data mining engine208.

In some implementations, the argument module 232 can analyze theseargument-based text, and employ an argument score indicative of therelevancy of these argument-based text. For example, an argument scorecan be generated using term weight values that provide a relativemeasure of the importance of a legal term appearing within a particularparagraph. For example, a legal term that is infrequently used in theEnglish language (e.g., estoppel, assignee, petitioner) that appearsmultiple times within a given paragraph can be given a high term weight(e.g., as it can indicate that a particular legal argument can relate toa particular legal doctrine).

As another example, a legal term that is frequently used in the Englishlanguage but appears only a few times within a given legal document canbe given a low term weight. The argument module 232 can use the termsweights to generate an arguments score for one or more of the sectionsof the documents stored in the repositories 104/106. The argument scorecan then be used to ascertain the likelihood that a particular section,paragraph, or document relates to a particular legal argument.

The argument module 232 can utilize the argument score in compiling atrained statistic model for legal arguments. For example, where thereare ten petitions (e.g., one petition for each separate case) in therepository 104 and six of them have an argument score of “9” (e.g., outof “10” with “10” being the most relevant and “1” being the leastrelevant) with respect to a legal argument pertaining to “inherency,”the argument module 232 can determine that 60% of the petitions argue onthe issue of“inherency.” A trained model can then be developed (e.g., bythe training/model development engine 102) based on a correlationbetween these statistics and the outcomes of those cases.

For example, if those six cases all result in the Board ruling in favorof the petitioner in canceling at least one claim of the patent indispute, a trained model can be developed based on the correlationbetween the cancellation of at least one claim and the legal argument ofinherency (e.g., where the petitioners have a 60% chance of having atleast one claim canceled and the patent owners have a 40% chance ofhaving at least one claim affirmed when the legal argument of inherencyis involved).

In some implementations, the argument module 232 can determine athreshold for the argument score above which a document can bediscounted from being used in developing the trained model. For example,the argument module 232 can determine that any argument score above “5”would be used for developing the trained model. Using the example givenabove, where there are ten petitions in the repository and three ofwhich have an argument score of “9” and four have an argument score of“4” with respect to a legal argument pertaining to inherency, theargument module 232 can determine that 30% of the petitions relate tothe issue of inherency (e.g., because the other four documents have anargument score of “4” that is below the threshold of “5”).

In some implementations, the argument module 232 can generate multipleargument scores for a particular document where the document might havemultiple sections or paragraphs discussing a particular legal argument.In some implementations, these argument scores can then be summed andweighted in determining a final argument score for the entire document.By summing and weighting the multiple argument scores, the argumentmodule 232 can determine the likelihood that the particular documentpertains to a particular legal argument. This determination can then beused by the correlation module 222 and the statistics module 226 increating relevant analytical or statistical information (e.g.,correlations between a particular legal argument and at least one claimthat will be canceled or affirmed by the Board) and by the model engine302 in developing and training models for use by theprediction/recommendation engine 320 in generating appropriatepredictions (e.g., predicted probability) and recommendations (e.g.,proposed actionable tasks).

For example, where a document has three separate paragraphs discussingthe legal issue of assignee estoppel, and the three separate paragraphshave an individual argument score of “7”, “10”, and “4”, the argumentmodule 232 can determine an average argument score of “7” for the entiredocument in the context of assignee estoppel. In this example, becauseat least two paragraphs have an argument score higher than apredetermined threshold of “5,” the summing and weighting approachesallows the argument engine 232 to view the argument score of “7” aslikely reliable and reduce the likely occurrence of false positives.

However, a false positive can occur, for example, where a paragraphmentions a legal authority that substantively focuses on legal privityand remotely discusses “assignee estoppel” as part of a supportingauthority when in fact the document or underlying argument does notinvolve “assignee estoppel.” For example, where there are two paragraphsin a document discussing a legal argument in the context of assigneeestoppel, the ten paragraphs each have an individual argument score of“1”, “1”, “1”, “1”, “9”, “9”, “9”, “1”, “1”, and “1”. The summing andweighting approach, if used, would then yield an average argument scoreof “3.3”. However, this approach might not be optimal in this instancebecause the result suggests that the document is likely not relevant toassignee estoppel, despite three consecutive paragraphs having anargument score of “9”, which is well above the predetermined threshold.

Accordingly, in some implementations, the number of occurrence as wellas the place of occurrence also can be considered in order to allow theargument module 232 to accurately assess and avoid any potential misread(and erroneous data extraction). Using the example above, the argumentmodule 232 can consider the fact that there are three paragraphs with anargument score of “9”, and that these paragraphs are consecutive innature, suggesting that the author might have been elaborating on thelegal argument at issue.

In some implementations, the argument module 232 can assign a weight tothe number of occurrence and the place of occurrence different from thatgiven by the summing and weighting approach. In these implementations,the weight might be in multiples (e.g., twice as important, or threetimes as important) when the place of occurrence or number of occurrenceexceeds a predetermined threshold (e.g., where the number of occurrenceexceeds “3” in a document with more than ten paragraphs discussingassignee estoppel, or where the place of occurrence exceeds fourconsecutive paragraphs in said document).

As discussed above, term weights can be used to provide a measure of theimportance of an associated term within a particular paragraph orsection. Terms weights can also be provided as a predetermined set ofterm weights or can be generated by one or more local services. Forexample, the argument module 232 can also be configured to generate termweights. Term weights can be generated using any known term weightingtechnique. For example, a term-frequency inverse document frequency termweight can be calculated for any particular terms. However, any knowntechnique for generating term weights can be used (e.g., using relativeterm frequencies across all of documents, a subset thereof, among theparagraphs of a particular document, and the like).

As discussed above, predictions and recommendations generated by theprediction/recommendation engine 320 can be displayed to the users via adashboard. In some implementations, in addition to the predictions andrecommendations 322, data gathered and processed by the statisticsmodule 226, the correlation module 222, and the argument module 232 alsocan be displayed to the user. FIG. 4 show an example site map 400 fordisplaying the assessment of the validity or invalidity of the patent toone or more users via a “Parties” category.

Referring to FIG. 4, the data analysis system 220 can display theprediction/recommendation 322 output by the prediction/recommendationengine 320. For example, the data analysis system 220 can display a“Parties” category 402 on a dashboard (e.g., dashboard 1000). When the“Parties” category 402 is selected, the user can be presented with oneor more options such as a listing of party name 404 or searching byparty name 406.

The listing by party name option 404 can include a listing of the mostactive party (petitioner or patent owner), or the party with the mostrecent submission or filing. The searching by party name option 406 canallow the user to search for and locate a particular party based on theparty's name (e.g., Google). When either option is executed, indicatingthat the user has chosen to view further information regarding aparticular party, the user can be presented with multiple additionaloptions for further selection such as, without limitation, “PetitionFiling by Year or Month” 408. “Patent Defended By Year or Month” 410,“Judge Count” 412, “Petition/Patent Owner Count” 414, and “List ofAssociated Patents” 416.

The “Petition Filing By Year or Month” option 408, when selected, canrequest the data analysis system 220 to display a listing of petitionsfiled by the party selected by the user. The selection can also includea selection to display the listing of petitions by year (e.g., allpetitions filed in 2013 and all petitions filed in 2014), or by month(e.g., all petitions filed in January of 2013, and all petitions filedin December of 2014).

Similarly, the user can request the data analysis system 220 to displayall patents defended by the selected party as a patent owner. Forexample, the “Patent Defended By Year or Month” option 410, whenselected, can request the data analysis system 220 to display a listingof patents defended by the selected party as a patent owner. Theselection can also include a selection to display the listing of patentsdefended by that party by year (e.g., all patents defended in 2013 andall patents filed in 2014), or by month (e.g., all patents defended inJanuary of 2013, and all patents filed in December of 2014).

The “Judge Count” option 412, when selected, allows the user to identifya listing of judges presiding over any proceeding in which the selectedparty was the patentee and/or the patent owner. For example, the “JudgeCount” option 412, when selected, can request the data analysis system220 to display a listing of judges (e.g., Judge Kevin F. Turner, JudgeJoni Y. Chang, and Judge Michael R. Zecher for inter partes review“IPR2013-XXXXXX” in which the selected party is the “Patent Owner”). Inaddition to displaying a listing of judges, the “Judge Count” option 412can also display a total count of proceedings for a particular judge.For example, the data analysis system 220 can display a count of “113”for “Judge Joni Y. Chang” followed by another count of “6” for “JudgeKevin F. Turner.” The count can be used to indicate the total number ofproceedings involving a petition filed or a patent defended by theselected party and in which the proceedings are/were presided (e.g., inpart or in whole) by the corresponding judge.

Optionally, the count number can be hyperlinked so that when the countnumber is selected by the user, the data analysis system 220 can furtherdisplay the judge count for a particular judge where the selected partyis/was a petitioner 418, and where the selected party is/was a patentowner 420. For example, the data analysis system 220 can display eachindividual judge with an associated count number involving a proceedingwhere the selected party is/was a petitioner, or a proceeding in whichthe selected party is/was a patent owner 420 (e.g., Judge “X” is/was ajudge in a “17” proceedings where the selected party is/was a petitionerand is/was a judge in a “11” proceedings where the selected party is/waspatent owner for a total count of “28”).

Similarly, the “Petition/Patent Owner Count” option 414 allows the userto identify a listing of proceedings in which the selected party is/wasa petitioner and a patent owner. For example, the “Petition/Patent OwnerCount” option 414, when selected, can request the data analysis system220 to display all proceedings involving the selected party as apetitioner or a patent owner. In this example, the content presented caninclude a count of “5” where the selected party is/was a petitioner, anda count of “2” where the selected party is/was a patent owner. The countcan also be hyperlinked such that when the count number is selected, thedata analysis system 220 can further display a first count where theselected party is/was a petitioner, and a second count where theselected party is/was a patent owner. For example, the data analysissystem 220 can display that the selected party has a count of “11” wherethe selected party is/was a petitioner, or a count of “13” where theselected party is/was a patent owner 420, for a total count of “24” asboth the petitioner and the patent owner.

The “List of Associated Patents” option 416, when selected, allows theuser to view a listing of patents that have been the subject of a reviewproceeding in which the selected party is either a petitioner or apatent owner. For example, assuming the selected party has involved in aproceeding in which Patent “X” was owned and defended by the selectedparty, and Patent “Y” was owned by a third party and challenged by theselected party, the “List of Associated Patents” option 416 can displayboth Patent “X” and Patent “Y” to the user.

In some implementations, each patent can be hyperlinked so thatinformation about a particular patent can be shown to the user. Theinformation can include, but is not limited to, patent number 426, IPRnumber 428 (e.g., case number assigned by the Board), names ofassociated presiding judges 430 (e.g., Judge Kevin F. Turner, Judge JoniY. Chang, and Judge Michael R. Zecher), and the current status 432 ofthe proceeding (e.g., “Pending” 434, “Settled/Terminated” 436,“Instituted/Not Instituted” 438, and “Final Decision” 440).

FIG. 5 show an example site map 500 for displaying the assessment of thevalidity or invalidity of the patent to one or more users via a “LawFirm/Counsel” category. Referring to FIG. 5, the data analysis system220 can display a “Law Firm/Counsel” category 502 on a dashboard (e.g.,dashboard 1000). When the “Law Firm/Counsel” category 502 is selected,the user can be presented with one or more options such as a listing oflaw firms/counsel by petition filings 504, searching by law firm name506 (e.g., “Fish & Richardson P.C.”), or searching by legal counsel name508 (e.g., “Alex Chan”).

The listing by law firms/counsel by petition filings option 504 caninclude a listing of the most active law firm(s) or legal counsel(s)(representing on behalf of a petitioner or patent owner), or the lawfirm(s) or counsel(s) by petition filings with the most recentsubmission or filing. The searching by law firm name option 506 canallow the user to search for and locate a particular law firm (e.g.,“Fish & Richardson P.C.”), and the searching by legal counsel nameoption 508 can allow the user to search for and locate a particularpatent practitioner. When either of these options is selected,indicating that the user has chosen to view further informationregarding a particular law firm or legal counsel, the user can bepresented with multiple additional options for further selection suchas, without limitation, “Client(s) represented” 510, “Cases” 512, “JudgeCount” 514, “Petition/Patent Owner Count” 516, and “List of AssociatedPatents” 518.

The “Client(s) represented” option 510, when selected, can request thedata analysis system 220 to display a listing of companies or businessesrepresented by the law firm or legal counsel selected by the user. Theselection can also include a selection to display the listing ofclient(s) represented by year (e.g., all clients represented in 2013 andall clients represented in 2014), or by month (e.g., all clientsrepresented in January of 2013, and all clients represented in Decemberof 2014).

Similarly, the user can request the data analysis system 220 to displayall cases or proceedings handled by the selected law firm or legalcounsel. For example, the “Cases” option 512, when selected, can requestthe data analysis system 220 to display a listing of proceedings handledby the selected law firm or legal counsel (e.g., IPR2013-XXXXXX,IPR2012-XXXXXX, IPR 2014-XXXXXX). The selection can also include aselection to display the listing of cases in which that selected lawfirm or legal counsel is named as a legal counsel or backup counsel byyear (e.g., all petitions filed in 2013 and all petitions defended in2014), or by month (e.g., all petitions filed in January of 2013, andall petitions filed in December of 2014).

The “Judge Count” option 514, when selected, allows the user to identifya listing of judges presiding over any proceeding in which the selectedlaw firm or legal counsel was the patentee and/or the patent owner. Forexample, the “Judge Count” option 514, when selected, can request thedata analysis system 220 to display a listing of judges (e.g., Judge“X”, Judge “Y”, and Judge “Z” for inter partes review “IPR2013-XXXXXX”in which the selected law firm or legal counsel represents orrepresented the “Patent Owner”).

In addition to displaying a listing of judges, the “Judge Count” option514 can also display a total count of proceedings for a particular judgethat has acted as a presiding or authoring judge in a proceeding inwhich at least one of the parties is/was represented by the selected lawfirm or legal counsel. For example, the data analysis system 220 candisplay a count of “13” for “Judge Joni Y. Chang” followed by anothercount of “6” for “Judge Kevin F. Turner” to indicate that “Judge Joni Y.Chang” is a judge in “13” of the proceedings in which at least one ofthe parties is/was represented by the selected law firm or legalcounsel, and “Judge Kevin F. Turner” is a judge in “6” of theproceedings in which at least one of the parties is/was represented bythe selected law firm or legal counsel.

The “Judge Count” option 514 can also sort the listing of judges bypetitioner 528 or by patent owner 530. For example, as shown in TABLE 1below, the data analysis system 220 can display “Judge Joni Y. Chang” asa judge in “10” proceedings where the petitioner is/was represented bythe selected law firm or legal counsel (e.g., Fish & Richardson P.C.”),and also as a judge in “3” of the proceedings where the patent owner wasrepresented by the selected law firm or legal counsel for a total of“13” proceedings.

TABLE 1 Fish & Richardson P.C. Name of Judge Petitioner Patent OwnerTotal Joni Y. Chang 10 3 13 Kevin F. Turner 12 5 17 Michael R. Zecher 111 12

Similarly, the “Petition/Patent Owner Count” option 516 allows the userto identify a listing of proceedings in which either a petitioner or apatent owner is/was represented by the selected law firm or legalcounsel. For example, the “Petition/Patent Owner Count” option 516, whenselected, can request the data analysis system 220 to display allproceedings involving a party represented by the selected law firm orlegal counsel.

For example, the data analysis 220 can display that the law firm “Fish &Richardson P.C.” has a count of “26” proceedings where either thepetitioner or the patent owner is/was represented by “Fish & RichardsonP.C.”. As another example, the data analysis 220 can display that thelegal counsel “Alex Chan” has a count of “12” proceedings where “AlexChan” is/was acting as a legal counsel or backup counsel.

In some implementations, the count number can also be hyperlinked suchthat when the count number is selected, the data analysis system 220 canfurther display a first count indicating the number of times apetitioner is/was represented by the selected law firm or legal counsel532, and a second count indicating the number of times a patent owneris/was represented by the selected law firm or legal counsel 534.

For example, as illustrated in TABLE 2 below, the data analysis system220 can display that the selected law firm or legal counsel “Fish &Richardson P.C.” has a count of “7” where a petitioner is/wasrepresented by the selected law firm or legal counsel, or a count of “8”where a patent owner is/was represented by the selected law firm orlegal counsel, for a total count of “15” representing both thepetitioner and the patent owner

TABLE 2 Firm Name Petitioner Patent Owner Total Fish & Richardson P.C. 78 15 Haynes Boone 6 7 13 Finnegan Henderson 4 5 9

The “List of Associated Patents” option 518, when selected, allows theuser to view a list of patents that have been the subject of aproceeding in which either a petitioner or a patent owner is/wasrepresented by the selected law firm or legal counsel. For example,assuming Patent “X” was owned and defended by a patent owner representedby the selected law firm or legal counsel, and Patent “Y” was owned by athird party and challenged by a party represented by the selected lawfirm or legal counsel, the “List of Associated Patents” option 518 candisplay both Patent “X” and Patent “Y” to the user.

In some implementations, each patent can be hyperlinked so thatinformation about a particular patent can be shown to the user. Theinformation can include, but is not limited to, patent number 536, IPRnumber 538 (e.g., case number assigned by the Board), names ofassociated presiding judges 540 (e.g., Judge Kevin F. Turner, Judge JoniY. Chang, and Judge Michael R. Zecher), and the current status 542 ofthe proceeding (e.g., “Pending” 544, “Settled/Terminated” 546,“Instituted/Not Instituted” 548, and “Final Decision” 550).

FIG. 6 show an example site map 600 for displaying the assessment of thevalidity or invalidity of the patent to one or more users via a “Judges”category. Referring to FIG. 6, the data analysis system 220 can displaya “Judges” category 602 on a dashboard (e.g., dashboard 1000). When the“Judges” category 602 is selected, the user can be presented with one ormore options such as a listing of judges by petition filings 604 (e.g.,Judge Kevin F. Turner, Judge Joni Y. Chang, and Judge Michael R. Zecher,etc.), or searching by the name of an individual judge 606 (e.g., JudgeJoni Y. Chang).

The listing of judges by petition filings option 604 can include alisting of the most active judges. The searching by the name of a judgeoption 606 can allow the user to search for and locate a particularjudge (e.g., “Judge Joni Y. Chang”). When either option 604/606 isselected, indicating that the user has chosen to view furtherinformation regarding a particular judge, the user can be presented withmultiple additional options for further selection such as, withoutlimitation, “Case Outcome” 608, “By Parties” 610, “Case Listing” 612,“Petitioner/Patent Owner Count” 614, and “Listing of Patents Presided”616.

The “Case Outcome” option 608, when selected, can request the dataanalysis system 220 to display a listing of case outcomes as ruled bythe selected judge. For example, the data analysis system 220 candisplay a listing of cases in which the selected judge is one of thethree judges that has affirmed at least one claim of a patent challengedby a petitioner. As another example, the data analysis system 220 candisplay a listing of cases in which the selected judge is one of thethree judges that has canceled at least one claim of a patent challengedby a petitioner. As yet another example, the data analysis system 220can display a listing of cases in which the selected judge is one of thethree judges that has affirmed or canceled all claims challenged by apetitioner.

As yet another example, the data analysis system 220 can display thecase outcomes in the form of percentages. For example, as illustrated inTABLE 3 below, the data analysis system 220 can display that 76.4% ofcases in which Judge “Joni Y. Chang” presided involve a Final Decisionin which at least one claim was canceled by the Board, and 23.6% ofcases involve a Final Decision in which at least one claim was affirmedby the Board. As another example, the data analysis system 220 candisplay that 87.8% of cases in which Judge “Joni Y. Chang” presidedinvolve a Final Decision in which at all claims were canceled by theBoard, and 12.2% of cases involve a Final Decision in which all claimswere affirmed by the Board.

TABLE 3 Name of Judge Joni Y. Chang Cases with at least one claimaffirmed 23.60% Cases with at least one claim canceled 76.40% Cases withall claims affirmed 12.20% Cases with all claims canceled 87.80%

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can furtherdisplay, for the selected judge, a count identifying a number ofproceedings ruled in favor of a petitioner 618 on at least one claim, acount identifying a number of proceedings ruled in favor of a patentowner 620 on at least one claim, and a count identifying a number ofproceedings that have been settled between the parties 622.

In some implementations, where the user selected to view all of theexisting judges, the judges can be sorted and displayed based on thenumber of wins by petitioner 618, number of wins by a patent owner 620,and number of cases settled 622. The number of wins by a petitioner 618,in some implementations, can be classified into two sub-categories;namely, at least one claim canceled by the Board, and all claimscanceled by the Board. Similarly, the number of wins by a patent owner620, in some implementations, can be classified into two sub-categories,namely, at least one claim canceled by the Board, and all claimsaffirmed by the Board.

For example, as illustrated in TABLE 4 below, the data analysis team 220can display that Judge Kevin F. Turner has a count of “82” proceedingsin which a petitioner has succeeded in having at least one claimcanceled by the Board, a count of “23” proceedings in which a patentowner has succeeded in having at least one claim affirmed by the Board,a count of “5” proceedings in which a patent owner has succeeded inhaving all claims affirmed by the Board, a count of “13” proceedings inwhich a petitioner has succeeded in having all claims canceled by theBoard, and a count of “3” proceedings in which parties have settledbefore final decision was reached; Judge Joni Y. Chang has a count of“45” proceedings in which a petitioner has succeeded in having at leastone claim canceled by the Board, a count of “48” proceedings in which apatent owner has succeeded in having at least one claim affirmed by theBoard, a count of “4” proceedings in which a patent owner has succeededin having all claims affirmed by the Board, a count of “11” proceedingsin which a petitioner has succeeded in having all claims canceled by theBoard, and a count of “5” proceedings in which parties have settledbefore final decision was reached; and Michael R. Zecher has a count of“12” proceedings in which a petitioner has succeeded in having at leastone claim canceled by the Board, a count of “91” proceedings in which apatent owner has succeeded in having at least one claim affirmed by theBoard, a count of “16” proceedings in which a patent owner has succeededin having all claims affirmed by the Board, a count of “2” proceedingsin which a petitioner has succeeded in having all claims canceled by theBoard, and a count of “9” proceedings in which parties have settledbefore final decision was reached.

TABLE 4 Kevin F. Joni Y. Michael R. Name of Judge Turner Chang ZecherCases with at least one claim affirmed 23 48 91 Cases with at least oneclaim canceled 82 45 12 Cases with all claims affirmed 5 4 16 Cases withall claims canceled 13 11 2 Cases settled 3 5 9

The “By Parties” option 610, when selected, can request the dataanalysis system 220 to display a listing of parties involved in aproceeding presided by the selected judge (e.g., “Google, Inc.”, “Apple,Inc.”, “Microsoft, Inc.”). If desired, the “By Parties” option 610 canalso display the parties based on their role as either a petitioner 624or a patent owner 626. For example, as illustrated in TABLE 5 below,Judge “Joni Y. Chang” has presided in “2” proceedings where the party“Google, Inc.” was a petitioner and “1” proceeding where the party“Google, Inc.” was a patent owner. Similarly, Judge “Joni Y. Chang” haspresided in “3” proceedings where the party “Apple, Inc.” was apetitioner and “2” proceeding where the party “Google, Inc.” was apatent owner; has presided in “4” proceedings where the party“Microsoft, Inc.” was a petitioner and “3” proceeding where the party“Microsoft, Inc.” was a patent owner; and has presided in “2”proceedings where the party “Marvel Semiconductor, Inc.” was apetitioner and “2” proceeding where the party “Marvel Semiconductor,Inc.” was a patent owner.

TABLE 5 Judge Joni Y. Chang Status Petitioner Patent Owner Google, Inc.9 1 Apple, Inc. 3 2 Microsoft, Inc. 4 3 Marvel Semiconductor, Inc. 2 2

The “Case Listing” option 612, when selected, can display a listing ofcases handled by the selected judge. For example, the “Case Listing”option 612, when selected, can request the data analysis system 220 todisplay a listing of proceedings handled by the selected judge (e.g.,IPR2013-XXXXXX, IPR2012-XXXXXX, IPR 2014-XXXXXX). The selection can alsoinclude a selection to display the listing of cases handled by theselected judge by year (e.g., all cases handled in 2013 and all caseshandled in 2014), or by month (e.g., all cases handled in January of2013, and all cases handled in December of 2014).

The listing can also include information such as, but is not limited to,patent number 628, IPR number 630 (e.g., case number assigned by theBoard), names of associated presiding judges 632 (e.g., Judge Kevin F.Turner, Judge Joni Y. Chang, and Judge Michael R. Zecher), and thecurrent status 634 of the proceeding (e.g., “Pending” 656,“Settled/Terminated” 658, “Instituted/Not Instituted” 660, and “FinalDecision” 662).

The “Petition/Patent Owner Count” option 614 allows the user to identifya listing of proceedings in which either the selected judge was apresiding or authoring judge (e.g., the judge who authored either theDecision (Not) to Institute Trial or Final Decision). For example, the“Petition/Patent Owner Count” option 614, when selected, can request thedata analysis system 220 to display all proceedings involving theselected judge. For example, the data analysis 220 can display that theselected judge has managed or involved in “75” review proceedings.

In some implementations, the count number can also be hyperlinked suchthat when the count number is selected, the data analysis system 220 canfurther display a first count indicating the number of times theselected judge ruled for or against a petitioner 636, and the number oftimes the selected judge ruled for or against a patent owner 638.

For example, as illustrated in TABLE 6 below, the data analysis system220 can display that the selected judge “Judge Joni Y. C(hang” has acount of “25” proceedings in which the selected judge has ruled for apetitioner and a count of “12” against the petitioner, and a count of“13” proceedings in which the selected judge has ruled for a patentowner and a count of “16” against the patent owner.

TABLE 6 Judge Joni Y. Chang For Against For Patent Against PatentPetitioner Petitioner Owner Owner 25 12 13 16

In some implementations, the count for “For Petitioner” can be definedas a number of proceedings in which the selected judge has grantedreview on some or all claims challenged by the petitioner, and “AgainstPetitioner” can be defined as a number of proceedings in which theselected judge denied review on some or all claims challenged by thepetitioner (i.e., did not institute trial on any petitioned claim).

In some implementations, the count for “For Petitioner” can be definedas a number of proceedings in which the selected judge has grantedreview on at least one claim challenged by the petitioner, and “AgainstPetitioner” can be defined as a number of proceedings in which theselected judge denied review on at least one claim challenged by thepetitioner (i.e., did not institute trial on any petitioned claim).

In some implementations, the count for “For Patent Owner” can be definedas a number of proceedings in which the selected judge did not grantreview on any of the claims challenged by the petitioner, and “AgainstPatent Owner” can be defined as a number of proceedings in which theselected judge has granted review on all claims challenged by thepetitioner (i.e., did not institute trial on any petitioned claim).

In some implementations, the count for “For Patent Owner” can be definedas a number of proceedings in which the selected judge denied review onat least one claim challenged by the petitioner, and “Against PatentOwner” can be defined as a number of proceedings in which the selectedjudge granted review on at least one claim challenged by the petitioner(i.e., did not institute trial on any petitioned claim).

The “List of Patents Presided” option 616, when selected, allows theuser to view a list of patents that have been the subject of aproceeding involving the selected judge as one of the presiding judges.For example, assuming Patents “X” and “Y” were involved in a proceedingwhere the selected judge was one of the three presiding judges, the“List of Associated Patents” option 616 can display both Patent “X” andPatent “Y” to the user as being presided by the selected judge.

In some implementations, each patent can be hyperlinked so thatinformation about a particular patent can be shown to the user. Theinformation can include, but is not limited to, patent number 640, IPRnumber 642 (e.g., case number assigned by the Board), names ofassociated presiding judges 644 (e.g., Judge Kevin F. Turner, Judge JoniY. Chang, and Judge Michael R. Zecher), and the current status 646 ofthe proceeding (e.g., “Pending” 648, “Settled/Terminated” 650,“Instituted/Not Instituted” 652, and “Final Decision” 654).

FIG. 7 show an example site map 700 for displaying the assessment of thevalidity or invalidity of the patent to one or more users via a “Patent”category. Referring to FIG. 7, the data analysis system 220 can displaya “Patent” category 702 on a dashboard (e.g., dashboard 1000). When the“Patent” category 702 is selected, the user can be presented with one ormore options such as a listing of patents by petition filings 704 (e.g.,IPR2013-00206 corresponding to U.S. Pat. No. 8,251,997; IPR2013-00173corresponding to U.S. Pat. No. 8,152,788), or searching by the patentnumber 706 (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 8,251,997).

The listing of patents by petition filings option 704 can include alisting of the most active patents (e.g., based on the most recentfilings associated with such patents). The searching by patent numberoption 706 can allow the user to search for and locate a particularpatent (e.g., those involved in a review proceeding). When either option704/706 is selected, indicating that the user has chosen to view furtherinformation regarding a particular patent, the user can be presentedwith multiple additional options for further selection such as, withoutlimitation, “Summary” 708, “rulings” 710, “Parties” 712, “ParallelDistrict Court Case(s)” 714, and “List of Related Patents” 716.

The “Summary” option 708, when selected, can request the data analysissystem 220 to display a summary for the selected patent. The summary caninclude, but is not limited to, patent number 720, IPR number 722 (e.g.,case number assigned by the Board), names of associated presiding judges724 (e.g., Judge Kevin F. Turner, Judge Joni Y. C(hang, and JudgeMichael R. Zecher), and the current status 726 of the proceeding (e.g.,“Pending” 728, “Settled/Terminated” 730, “Instituted/Not Instituted”732, and “Final Decision” 734).

The “Rulings” option 710, when selected, can request the data analysissystem 220 to display a listing of rulings associated with the selectedpatent. In some implementations, the rulings can be categorized intopre-trial rulings (e.g., via the pre-trail option 740) or trial findings(e.g., via the trial findings 742).

Under the pre-trial option 740, the data analysis system 220 can furtherdisplay additional information, such as, without limitation, claimspetitioned 736 (e.g., claims petitioned by the petitioner) and claimsgranted for review 738. Similarly, under the trial-finding option 742,the data analysis system 220 can further display additional information,such as, without limitation, number of claims affirmed 744, number ofclaims canceled 746, and evidentiary issues 748 including relevant legalarguments and corresponding rulings.

For example, as illustrated in TABLE 7 below, the data analysis system220 can display the Board rulings for U.S. Pat. No. 6,669,981. As shown,the data analysis system 220 can display that there are a total of 19claims petitioned by the Petitioner, and a total of 19 claims grantedfor review by the Board. In some implementations, the information underthe pre-trial rulings section can also include the listing of claimspetitioned (e.g., claims 1-8, 10-20) and the listing of claims grantedfor review (e.g., claims 1-8, 10-20), and legal arguments raised ineither the Petitioner's petition, Patent Owner's preliminary response,or any evidence submitted prior to the Board issuing the Decision (Not)to Institute Trial or Decision Not to Institute Trial. As an example,such legal arguments can include “relevancy of statements made inunrelated patents or applications owned by the patent owner,” “teachingaway”, and “no reasonable expectation of success by one skilled in theart to produce the claimed invention.”

As discussed previously, the legal arguments under the pre-trial rulingscan contain legal doctrines or arguments extracted by the data miningengine 208 and the argument module 224. In some implementations, theselegal doctrines or arguments can include those advanced by thepetitioner, by the patent owner, or both the petitioner and the patentowner.

TABLE 7 Rulings for U.S. Pat. No. 6,669,981 Pre-Trial Rulings NumberNumber of of Claims Claims Granted Petitioned for Review Legal ArgumentCited 19 19 “relevancy of statements made in unrelated patents orapplications owned by the patent owner” “teaching away” “no reasonableexpectation of success by one skilled in the art to produce the claimedinvention” Trial Findings Number Number of Legal Argument of ClaimsClaims Addressed Affirmed Canceled by Board Ruling by Board  0 19Teaching Away PO Lost/P Won Commercial Success PO Lost/P Won PraisePatent Owner Lost Long-felt Need PO Lost/P Won Copying by CompetitorPatent Owner Lost

Further, as shown in TABLE 7 above, under the trial findings section,the data analysis system 220 can display that there are a total of “0”claim affirmed and “19” claims canceled by the Board. In someimplementations, the information under the trial findings section canalso include the listing of claims affirmed (e.g., none) and the listingof claims canceled (e.g., claims 1-19), and legal arguments addressed bythe Board, for example, in the Board's Final Decision and the Board'scorresponding rulings regarding those arguments.

As an example, such legal arguments can include “teaching away,”“Commercial Success”, “Praise”, “Long-felt need”, and “Copying byCompetitor.” In some implementations, these arguments can be extractedfrom the Board's Final Decision. In some implementations, thesearguments also can be extracted from any Order or Decision (e.g., thoseassociated with “Order Conduct of the Proceeding” or a party's rehearingrequest) issued by the Board prior to the Final Decision. In the exampleabove, the data analysis system 220 can use its proprietary analytics(e.g., in conjunction with the argument module 232) to determine theBoard's ruling for each of the legal issues raised in the legalarguments, and display the results of the rulings under the “Ruling”column.

For example, with respect to the legal argument “Teaching Away” raisedby the Patent Owner but disputed by the Petitioner, the Board ruled forthe Petitioner. In other words, the Board's ruling is that the patentowner has lost and petitioner has won (i.e., “PO Lost/P Won”) withrespect to this legal issue.

In some implementations, the data mining engine 208 and the argumentmodule 224 can extract these rulings from the “Summary” or “Order”section of the Final Decision. In some implementations, the data miningengine 208 and the argument module 224 can extract these rulings withinthe main body of the Final Decision. Once extracted, these informationcan then be stored in the repositories 104/106 for subsequent retrievaland display.

In certain cases, an argument might have been raised by one party butnot responded or addressed by the other. For example, the data miningengine 208 and the argument module 224 can determine that the issuerelating to “Praise” was argued by the Patent Owner in support of thePatent Owner's evidence of secondary consideration of non-obviousnesswas raised in the Patent Owner's preliminary response, but not in any ofthe Petitioner's reply subsequent to the Patent Owner's preliminaryresponse (e.g., by checking for the presence of the term “Praise” in alldocuments submitted or filed by the Petitioner). In theseimplementations, because the Petitioner has not addressed the issue, thedata analysis system 220 can display only that the “Patent Owner Lost”with respect to the “Praise” argument, as opposed to “PO Lost/P Won”which might infer that the Petitioner has made an effort to argueagainst the relevancy of “Praise” in the context of secondaryconsideration of non-obviousness.

Other options (e.g., other than “PO Lost/P Won” and “Patent OwnerLost”), where applicable, can include “Patent Owner Won”, “PetitionerWon”, “Petitioner Lost”, “P Lost/PO Won”, “DNA” (Did Not Address byBoard) and the like.

The “Parties” option 712, when selected, can request the data analysissystem 220 to display a listing of the parties involved in a proceedingunderlying the selected patent. the display can include a sectionlisting the corresponding petitioner 750 (e.g., “Google, Inc.”) and asection listing the corresponding patent owner 752 (e.g., “IntellectualVentures, Inc.). In some implementations, the data analysis system 220can also display a full listing of patents and parties involved in eachof the listed patent. If desired, the listing can be sorted by anyconventional means (e.g., chronologically, alphabetically, numerically,and the like).

The “Parallel District Court Case(s)” option 714, if selected, canrequest the data analysis system 220 to display all informationassociated with any existing parallel district court or ITC case inwhich the selected patent is also in dispute. In some implementations,these information can be extracted from documents submitted by thePetitioner (e.g., Mandatory Notice or Petition) or Patent Owner (e.g.,Mandatory Notice or Preliminary Response), or documents issued by theBoard (e.g., Decision (Not) to Institute Trial or Final Decision).

The “List of Associated Patents” option 716, when selected, allows theuser to view a list of patents that are related to the selected patentand which are also ongoing the review proceeding (e.g., continuation,divisional, and continuation-in-part). For example, assuming Patents “X”and “Y” are/were involved in a current or past review proceeding, the“List of Associated Patents” option 716 can display both Patent “X” andPatent “Y” to the user as being related to the selected patent.

In some implementations, each related patent can be hyperlinked so thatinformation about a particular patent can be shown to the user. Theinformation can include, but is not limited to, patent number 754, IPRnumber 756 (e.g., case number assigned by the Board), names ofassociated presiding judges 758 (e.g., Judge Kevin F. Turner, Judge JoniY. Chang, and Judge Michael R. Zecher), and the current status 760 ofthe proceeding (e.g., “Pending” 762, “Settled/Terminated” 764,“Instituted/Not Instituted” 766, and “Final Decision” 768).

While the implementations above are described with respect to certaintypes of data, it should be noted that data provided above with respectto FIGS. 4-7 are random in nature and illustrative only to help furtherunderstand the corresponding implementations.

FIG. 11 show an example site map 1100 for displaying the assessment ofthe validity or invalidity of a patent to one or more users via a “NewCase Analysis” category. Referring to FIG. 1, the data analysis system220 can display a “New Case Analysis” category 1102 on a dashboard(e.g., dashboard 1000). When the “New Case Analysis” category 1102 isselected, the user can be presented with an option to search by patentor case number 1104 (e.g., IPR2013-00206 or U.S. Pat. No. 8,251,997).The “New Case Analysis” category 1102 allows a user to assess thevalidity or invalidity of a patent that is the subject of a new case(e.g., a new petition) or an existing case (e.g., an ongoing case thathas not been settled, terminated, or decided in a Final decision).

Upon receiving the patent or case number, the data analysis system 220can display a summary of any review proceeding associated with thereceived patent. For example, the summary option 1106 allows the user toview a summary that includes information such as, without limitation,the patent number 1110, the corresponding IPR number 1112, the names ofpresiding judges 1114, and the current status 1116 of the proceeding.

When the case assessment option 1108 is selected, the user can furtherassess and retrieve predictions and recommendations for a petitioner1118, or a patent owner 1120. For example, as discussed in FIG. 10D. theuser can toggle the selectable input 1051 to view predictions 1112 andrecommendations 1124 specific to either a petitioner or a patent owner.

As discussed above, predictions 1112 can include analytical orstatistical information such as a predicted winning probability (e.g.,as discussed with respect to FIGS. 10A-10D) that either at least oneclaim will be granted reviewed, valid, or invalid.

In operation, once the patent or case number is received and identified,the data mining system 202 can retrieve all existing documents submittedby the petitioner and patent owner in a proceeding associated with theidentified patent or case (e.g., via a public source or the repositories104/106 if those documents have previously been retrieved). Theextracted data can then be analyzed based on one or more trained models,which can then be used to generate subsequent predictions andrecommendations (e.g., via the prediction/recommendation engine 320).

In some implementations, where no review proceeding has taken place(e.g., where no petition has been filed yet), the data mining system 202can, for example, retrieve and extract all information associated withthe identified patent (e.g., class/subclass, assignee, number of claims,law firm prosecuting the patent, cited prior art). The extracted datacan then be analyzed based on one or more trained models in the same waydiscussed above, and used to generate subsequent predictions andrecommendations (e.g., via the prediction/recommendation engine 320).

The “New Case Analysis” category 1102 can help users formulate the mostrewarding strategy by reviewing some or all past and present proceedingsto assess and predict the likelihood that at least one claim of a patentthat is the subject of a new proceeding will be granted review, canceledor affirmed by the Board. This predictive analysis can then be used todetermine whether a patent infringement suit, ITC's § 337 enforcement,declaratory judgments, or other legal remedies should be pursued.

For example, the predictive analysis generated by the data analysissystem 220 (e.g., via prediction/recommendation 322) can inform a patentowner whose patent has at least one claim being challenged by apetitioner that the at least one claim will likely be canceled by theBoard. Based on this prediction, the patent owner can tailor a legalstrategy with its outside counsel in a cost-cutting measure to settlethe proceeding early on, and defer filing any patent infringement suitat the district court level.

As another example, the predictive analysis generated by the dataanalysis system 220 (e.g., via prediction/recommendation 322) can informan accused infringer prior to filing a petition that the underlyingpatent has a 93.3% likelihood to be granted review and 62.2% that atleast one claim will be canceled by the Board. Based on these predictionand recommendation, the accused infringer can subsequently make aninformed decision to file a petition challenging the validity of one ormore claims of the subject patent.

FIG. 12 is an example screenshot of the “New Case Analysis” category. Asshown in FIG. 12, the “Case Analysis” section 1200 can include a userinput field for case number 1202 through which a user can locate aspecific proceeding involving that case number. The “Case Analysis”section 1200 can also include other user input fields 1204 such as thecase type (e.g., to search all IPR or CBM or district court cases),patent number, petitioner, patent owner, or a specific time period thatincludes a start filing date and an end filing date. The “Case Analysis”section 1200 can further include a list of pending or expiredproceedings (e.g., proceedings with statuses such as “Final Decision.”“Pending” “Settled,” “Instituted”, and “Not Instituted”) through whichthe user can select to view additional information. The “Case Analysis”section 1200 can further provide a counter 1208 to indicate the numberof inter parte or post grant proceedings that are before the Board(and/or the District Court cases in a particular district or alldistricts).

Miscellaneous Intelligence

In some implementations, the data mining/analysis system 102 canregularly track and continuously update a variety of statistics andmodels on an hourly, per day, per week, per month, or annual basis. Insome implementations, such statistics can include, without limitations,the total number of cases pending in post-grant or inter partesproceedings, total number of cases with at least one claim canceled,total number of cases with at least one claim affirmed, with at least noclaims canceled, total number of cases with no claims affirmed, totalnumber of cases that have gone to the Board at Decision to Institutephase (“DTI phase”), total number of cases that have gone to the Boardat Final Decision phase (“FD phase”), total number of cases that did notgo to the Board at Final Decision phase, total number of cases with allchallenged claims canceled, total number of cases with all patent claimscanceled, total number of cases with all challenged claims affirmed,total number of cases with all patent claims affirmed, total number ofcases with at least one claim granted, total number of cases with noclaim granted, total number of cases with preliminary response filed,and total number of cases without a preliminary response filed. Ingeneral, the data mining/analysis system 102 can track and update anystatistic associated with any particular type of legal document filed orsubmitted to the Board (e.g., any motion or brief, request for hearing,oral hearing, etc.).

Validity Rating for Each Patent

As discussed previously, the “Case Analysis” page 1200 can display aplurality of inter parte proceedings and/or district court cases to auser. The user can select a particular proceeding to be taken to ananalysis page that provides a detailed analysis regarding a particularpatent. FIG. 13 is an example screenshot of an analysis page 1300.Referring to FIG. 13, the analysis page 1300 can include four analysissections each of which provides detailed predictive analysis andintelligence regarding a particular patent. As shown, the analysis page1300 includes a validity strength rating section 1301, a comparisonsection 1302, a “Before Petition is Filed” section 1304, a “BeforeDecision to (Not) Institute” section 1306, and a “Before Final But AfterDecision to Institute” section 1308.

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can determine avalidity strength rating 1313 for each individual patent (e.g., via thecorrelation module 222, the statistics module 226, and/or the modeldevelopment module 228) for display in the validity strength ratingsection 1301. In some implementations, the validity strength rating canbe expressed as a number between 0 to 100. In these implementations, thehigher the rating (e.g., a rating closer to 100) for a patent, theharder it is for a petitioner to challenge and easier it is for a patentowner to defend the patent. Similarly, the lower the rating (e.g., arating closer to 0), the easier it is for a petitioner to challenge thepatent and harder it is for a patent owner to defend the patent.

In some implementations, the validity strength rating can be asingle-value metric that gives users an understanding on the difficultyof defeating a patent. Like the slugging percentage in baseball, whichcombines various hitting results to generate the slugging percentage,the validity strength rating can also combine a host of factors aboutthe patent, such as its litigation history and information about theunderlying technology, and reputation of the patent owner, to generateits value.

In some implementations, the validity strength rating can be determinedbased on one or more of three different variables, namely, the totalpatent strength rating based on a particular patent (“totalPSByPI”), thetotal patent strength rating based on a particular patent owner(“totalPSByPO”), and the total patent strength rating based on aparticular patent class (“totalPSByPC”).

The totalPSByPI can indicate the total patent strength rating determinedbased on an individual patent strength (e.g., PIStrength). Similarly,the totalPSByPO can indicate the total patent strength rating determinedbased on patents with the same patent owner (e.g., POStrength), and thetotalPSByPC can indicate the total patent strength rating determinedbased on patents with the same patent class (e.g., PCStrength).

In some implementations, the PIStrength of a patent can be determined byidentifying cases involving the same patent. For these cases, the totalnumber of canceled claims can be summed up to arrive at an overallcancel claim rate with respect to the total number of claims in thispatent. The totalPSByPI can then be determined by calculating the ratioof the cancel claim rate and the total number of claims to arrive at thetotal number of claims affirmed by the Board (e.g., by subtracting theratio from 1, or 1-CN/TC where CN is the cancel claim rate and TC is thenumber of total claims for that patent).

In some implementations, where there's no prior litigation historyinvolving a patent, the patent's PIStrength can be replaced with thetotal patent strength by all patents (totalPSByAllPIs). In someimplementations, the totalPSByAllPIs can be determined by finding anaverage of the patent strength across all patents.

In some implementations, the POStrength of a patent can be determined byidentifying all patents associated with a particular patent owner. Forthese patents, the total claims for each patent can be summed to arriveat an overall total claim rate involving this patent owner. Similarly,the total number of canceled claims for these patents involving the samepatent owner can be summed to arrive at an overall cancel claim rate.The totalPSByPO can then be determined by calculating the ratio of thecancel claim rate and the total claim rate to arrive at the total numberof claims affirmed by the Board (e.g., by subtracting the ratio from 1,or 1-CN/TC where CN is the cancel claim rate for all patents associatedwith a particular patent owner and TC is the number of total claims forall patents associated with this particular patent owner).

In some implementations, where there's no prior litigation historyinvolving a patent, the patent's POStrength can be replaced with thetotal patent strength by all patents associated with a particular owner(totalPSByAllPOs). In some implementations, the totalPSByAllPOs can bedetermined by finding an average of the patent strength across allpatents associated with this patent owner.

In some implementations, the PCStrength of a patent can be determined byidentifying all patents associated with a particular class (andsubclass). For these patents, the total claims for each patent can besummed to arrive at an overall total claim rate involving this patentclass (and subclass). Similarly, the total number of canceled claims forthese patents involving the same class (and subclass)can be summed toarrive at an overall cancel claim rate. The totalPSByPC can then bedetermined by calculating the ratio of the cancel claim rate and thetotal claim rate to arrive at the total number of claims affirmed by theBoard (e.g., by subtracting the ratio from 1, or 1-CN/TC where CN is thecancel claim rate for all patents associated with a particular patentclass (and subclass) and TC is the number of total claims for allpatents associated with this particular patent class (and subclass)).

In some implementations, where there's no prior litigation historyinvolving a patent, the patent's PCStrength can be replaced with thetotal patent strength by all patents associated with a particular class(and subclass) (totalPSByAllPCs). In some implementations, thetotalPSByAllPCs can be determined by finding an average of the patentstrength of all patents associated with a particular class (andsubclass).

In some implementations, the validity strength rating can be determinedby averaging the totalPSByPI, totalPSByPO, and totalPSByPC. In someimplementations, the validity strength rating can be determined byapplying different weights to the totalPSByPI, totalPSByPO, andtotalPSByPC. For example, more weights can be given to totalPSByPI(e.g., where totalPSByPI can be given with twice as much weight) ascompared to totalPSByPO and totalPSByPC. As another example, adifferential weight can be assigned to each of totalPSByPI (e.g., 0.2×),totalPSByPO (e.g., 1.5×), and totalPSByPC (e.g., 4×) in order todetermine the validity strength rating.

In some implementations, each of the differential weights can bedetermined using a variety of analytical or statistical models. In someimplementations, an analytical or statistical model can be created todetermine the impact of a particular attribute to the validity of apatent. For example, an analytical or statistical model can be createdto determine the impact of a patent owner on the validity of the patent(e.g., a model indicative that patents associated with patent owner “ABCCorp” are more likely to be invalidated by the Board or district Court).As another example, an analytical or statistical model can be created todetermine the impact of a patent class on the validity of the patent(e.g., a model indicative that patents associated with “DRAMsemiconductor memory” in PC computing” are more likely to be invalidatedby the Board or district Court). The analytical or statistical modelsalso can consider litigation data associated with any prior litigationhistory involving the patent (e.g., any prior district court litigation,ITC investigations, reexamination, post-grant or inter partesproceedings, and the like).

In some implementations, the validity strength rating also can bedetermined (in addition or in place of the attributes discussed above)based on extrinsic and intrinsic data. In some implementations, theintrinsic data can include data associated with the filing date,assignee or patent owner, number of cited prior art, number of patentclaims, the filing date, and the priority date. In some implementations,the external data can include the litigation data discussed above (e.g.,litigation data associated with any prior litigation history involvingthe patent such as prior district court litigation, ITC investigations,reexamination, post-grant or inter partes proceedings, and the like).

In some implementations, the validity strength rating can be determinedfor patents that are the subject of any challenge or litigation (e.g.,past or present litigation). In some implementations, the validitystrength rating can also be determined for a particular patent that hasnot been the subject to any litigation (e.g., no related district courtlitigation, International Trade Commission proceeding, orinter-parte/post-grant proceeding). In implementations where a patenthas no prior litigation history, the validity strength rating can bedetermined based on totalPSByPO and/or totalPSByPC. In other words, thevalidity strength rating for the subject patent can depend on the valuedetermined based on totalPSByPO and/or totalPSByPC. In theseimplementations, neither totalPSByPO nor totalPSByPC consider thesubject patent at issue (e.g., the cancel claim rate and the total claimrate for the subject patent need not be included in determiningtotalPSByPO and/or totalPSByPC). In these implementations, the samevalidity strength rating can be assigned to patents with the same patentowner, patents with the same patent class, or a different validitystrength rating can be assigned to patents with the same patent owner orpatents with the same patent class by applying different weights tototalPSByPO and/or totalPSByPC (e.g., using intrinsic data unique toeach patent).

In some implementations, the validity strength rating of a patent withno prior litigation history can also utilize a global factor to replacetotalPSByPI. This global factor can be used in conjunction withtotalPSByPO and/or totalPSByPC in determining the validity strengthrating. This global factor can be a global average of totalPSByPIdetermined by averaging all patent strength across all or a specific setof patents, as will be discussed below with respect to the “SpiderGraph” section.

In some implementations, the validity strength rating can also begenerated at different phases of the inter partes/post-grant proceeding,or district court proceeding. The validity strength rating for eachphase can be displayed to a user in each of the corresponding sections1304, 1306, and 1308. Providing different validity strength ratings atdifferent phases allows both the patent owner and the petitioner (orplaintiff and defendant in a district court case) as the parties candetermine the phases where the patent is strongest and weakest. Thisallows either party to decide whether to bulk up or save expenses duringeach phase.

More specifically, determining a validity strength rating for each phaseof litigation allows both parties involved in a patent dispute to settleor to continue battling in the litigation. From a business perspective,if a particular patent is strong, the validity strength rating can beused to provide additional leverage in negotiating a reasonablesettlement and settlement amount. Similarly, for an accused infringer,the validity strength rating can be used to help stop or reduceunnecessary expenses such that the accused infringer need not spend anexorbitant amount of legal fees getting the proceeding to trial only tolose again resulting in huge pay-outs, lost opportunity costs, and steeplegal bills.

In some implementations, the validity strength rating for a patent canbe determined for four separate phases in an inter partes/post-grantproceeding; namely, before any petition is filed against the patent(“Pre-Petition Stage”), after the petition is filed but before the Boardhas issued its Decision to (Not) Institute (“Decision Stage”), after theDecision Stage but before the Board has issued its Final Decision(“Final Stage”), and after Final Decision has rendered (“Post-FinalStage). As will be discussed above, the validity strength rating 1313shown in the validity strength rating section 1301 can be associatedwith a Post-Final Decision Stage that indicates the validity strengthrating of the affirmed and/or canceled claims as decided by the Board.

In some implementations, the validity strength rating for thePre-Petition Stage can be displayed as rating 1305 under the “BeforePetition is Filed” section 1304; the validity strength rating for theDecision Stage can be displayed as rating 1307 under the “BeforeDecision to (Not) Institute” section 1306; and the validity strengthrating for the Final Stage can be displayed as rating 1309 under the“Before Final Decision But After Decision to Institute” section 1308.

In some implementations, the validity strength rating for thePre-Petition Stage can be represented by PPPatentStrength; the validitystrength rating for the Decision Stage can be represented byDTlPatentStrength; the validity strength rating for the Final Stage canbe represented by FDPatentStrength; and the validity strength rating forthe Post-Final Stage can be represented by OverallPatentStrength.

As discussed above, the PPPatentStrength indicates how strong aparticular patent is or how likely this particular patent is valid atthe Pre-Petition stage (e.g., before any petition against this patent isfiled). In some implementations, the PPPatentStrength can be determinedbased on a related technology area (e.g., via class(es) and subclass(es)under which the subject patent is classified), the name of the patentowner, the name of the inventor(s), the number of prior art cited in apatent, the number of claims (independent and/or dependent claims) inthe patent, the priority date, the effective filing date, the examinerhandling the examination of the patent, and the law firm and/or legalcounsel handling the prosecution of the patent.

In some implementations, a global validity strength rating can also bedetermined based on all cases before the Board or all existing patents.For example, the global validity strength rating (“acPPPatentStrength”)for the Pre-Petition Stage can be determined by summing and averagingall PPPatentStrengths across all cases or all existing patents. Forexample, where there are two patents each with an individualPPPatentStrength (e.g., PPPatentStrength1 and PPPatentStrength2), theacPPPatentStrength can be determined by calculating the average ofPPPatentStrength and PPPatentStrength2.

Similarly, the DTIPatentStrength indicates how strong a particularpatent is or how likely this particular is valid at the Decision Stage(e.g., before any Decision to Institute is rendered). In someimplementations, the DTIPatentStrength can be determined based on avariety of factors such as those shown in TABLE A above including, forexample, the total number of claims in a patent and the total number ofclaims of the patent that are being challenged, or any factors that areavailable prior or up to the Decision Stage.

For example, other factors used to determine the DTIPatentStrength mayinclude those shown in TABLE A and/or TABLE B above, such as whether apreliminary response has been filed, the name of the petitioner and/orpatent owner, the name of counsel and/or law firm representing thepetitioner and/or patent owner, the name of any expert witness whosedeclaration is being relied upon in the preliminary response and/orpetition, the identification and/or number of prior art cited in thepetition, identification of terms being disputed by the patent ownerand/or petitioner, any related matter (e.g., parallel district court,ITC, IPR (inter partes) or CBM (covered business method) case(s)), anylegal authority or case law cited by the patent owner in the preliminaryresponse or the petitioner in the petitioner, and any legal argumentsadvanced by the patent owner in the preliminary response or thepetitioner in the petitioner.

In some implementations, a global validity strength rating can also bedetermined for the Decision Stage. For example, the global validitystrength rating (“acDTIPatentStrength”) for the Decision Stage can bedetermined by summing and averaging all DTIPatentStrengths across allcases before the Board at the Decision Stage or all existing patents.For example, where there are two patents each with an individualDTIPatentStrength (e.g., DTIPatentStrength1 and DTIPatentStrength2), theacDTIPatentStrength can be determined by calculating the average ofDTIPatentStrength and DTIPatentStrength2.

Similarly, the FDPatentStrength indicates how strong a particular patentis or how likely this particular is valid at the Final Stage (e.g.,before any Final Decision is rendered). In some implementations, theFDPatentStrength can be determined based on a variety of factors suchas, without limitation, the total number of claims of the patent thatare being challenged and the total number of claims that have beengranted review by the Board, or any factors that are available prior orup to the Final Stage.

For example, other factors used to determine the FDPatentStrength mayinclude data extracted from the Decision stage such as those shown inTABLE A, TABLE B, TABLE C and/or TABLE E above including, for example,the names of the presiding judges, the name of the authoring judge, thedate of the Decision to Institute Trial, the total number of claimsdenied review by the Board and listing of such claims, the total numberof 102/103 grounds granted by the Board in instituting trials, theidentification of claims granted and denied under 102 and/or 103grounds, the number of prior art references used in 103 grounds grantedby the Board, the date of the initial conference call between thepresiding judges and the parties, claim terms and their respective claimconstructions rendered by the Board, identification of claim term(s)constructed by the petitioner and adopted by the Board, identificationof claim term(s) constructed by the patent owner and adopted by theBoard, identification of claim terms construed by the Board on its own,identification of claim terms given plain meaning by the Board,identification of claim terms involving 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6^(th)paragraph, any related matter (e.g., parallel district court, ITC, IPR(inter partes) or CBM (covered business method) proceeding(s)), anylegal arguments addressed by the Board in granting (or denying part of)the petition, any legal authority or case law cited by the Board ingranting (or denying part of) the petition, as well as correlationsbetween various analytical or statistical models associated withgranting or denying review.

In some implementations, a global validity strength rating can also bedetermined for the Final Stage. For example, the global validitystrength rating (“acFDPatentStrength”) for the Final Stage can bedetermined by summing and averaging all FDPatentStrengths across allcases before the Board at the Final Stage or all existing patents. Forexample, where there are two patents each with an individualFDPatentStrength (e.g., FDPatentStrength1 and FDPatentStrength2), theacFDPatentStrength can be determined by calculating the average ofFDPatentStrength1 and FDPatentStrength2.

In some implementations, each of the PPPatentStrength,DTIPatentStrength, and FDPatentStrength can be updated after theirrespective stage. For example, the data analysis system 220 can updatethe PPPatentStrength once a petition has been filed (e.g., by updatingthe analytical or statistical models to reflect data and attributesassociated with the petition). As another example, the data analysissystem 220 can update the DTIPatentStrength once the Decision to (Not)Institute has been issued by the Board (e.g., by updating the analyticalor statistical models to reflect data and attributes associated with theDecision to (Not) Institute). As yet another example, the data analysissystem 220 can update the FDPatentStrength once the Final Decision hasbeen rendered by the Board (e.g., by updating the analytical orstatistical models to reflect data and attributes associated with theFinal Decision). In this example, when the FDPatentStrength is updated,it can effectively become the overall validity strength ratingOverallPatentStrength.

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can generate anoverall validity strength rating (“OverallPatentStrength) based on allfinal legal outcomes associated with the litigation at the Post-FinalDecision Stage. In some implementations, the OverallPatentStrength canbe determined using factors as discussed in TABLE A, TABLE B, TABLE C,TABLE D, TABLE F, and/or TABLE G above, and can be shown as the validitystrength rating 1313 in the validity strength rating section 1301 inFIG. 13.

Where factors associated with a related matter are considered, theOverallPatentStrength can be determined by including factors such as thenames of the presiding judges for the DTI or FD, the name of the judgeauthoring the DTI or FD, the date of the written Final Decision,identification of prior art relied upon by the petitioner and the Board,claim terms and their respective claim constructions by the Board and/oreither party, identification of claim term(s) constructed by thepetitioner and adopted by the Board, identification of claim term(s)constructed by the patent owner and adopted by the Board, identificationof claim terms construed by the Board on its own, identification ofclaim terms given plain meaning by the Board, identification of claimterms involving 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6^(h) paragraph, any legal argumentsaddressed by the Board in affirming or canceling one or more claims, anylegal authority or case law cited by the Board in affirming or cancelingone or more claims as well as correlations between various analytical orstatistical models associated with affirming or canceling claims.

In some implementations, where the Board has issued a Final Decision tocancel all claims, the data analysis system 220 can issue an automaticvalidity strength rating of zero to the patent in dispute, because allof the claims are no longer valid after they are canceled by the Board.

In some implementations, a global validity strength rating can also bedetermined for the Post-Final Decision Stage. For example, the globalvalidity strength rating (“acOPatentStrength”) for the Final Stage canbe determined by summing and averaging all OverallPatentStrength acrossall cases before the Board at the Post-Final Decision Stage or allexisting patents. For example, where there are two patents each with anindividual OverallPatentStrength (e.g., OverallPatentStrength1 andOverallPatentStrength2), the acOPatentStrength can be determined bycalculating the average of OverallPatentStrength andOverallPatentStrength2.

FIG. 15 shows an example screenshot of a rating chart 1500. The ratingchart 1500 can be displayed together with a spider graph (to bediscussed below) under the comparison section 1302. Alternatively, eachrating in the rating chart 1500 can be shown in its respective section1304-1306, and 1308.

As shown in FIG. 15, the rating chart 1500 can include ratings for eachof the phases; namely, the Pre-Petition Stage 1502, the Decision Stage1504, the Final Stage 1506, and the Post-Final Decision Stage 1508. Therating 1514 associated with the Pre-Petition Stage 1502 can be thevalidity strength rating determined by the data analysis system 220 fora particular patent at the Pre-Petition Stage 1502 (e.g.,PPPatentStrength). The rating 1518 associated with the Decision Stage1504 can be the validity strength rating determined by the data analysissystem 220 for the particular patent at the Decision Stage 1504 (e.g.,DTIPatentStrength). The rating 1522 associated with the Final Stage 1506can be the validity strength rating determined by the data analysissystem 220 for the particular patent at the Final Stage 1506 (e.g.,FDPatentStrength). The rating 1526 associated with the Post-Final Stage1508 can be the validity strength rating determined by the data analysissystem 220 for the particular patent at the Post-Final Stage 1508 (e.g.,OverallPatentStrength).

Similarly, the rating chart 1500 can include global ratings for eachphase. As shown, the rating 1512 of the Pre-Petition Stage 1502 can bethe global validity strength rating determined by the data analysissystem 220 for all cases before the Board or all existing patents at thePre-Petition Stage 1502 (e.g., acPPPatentStrength). The rating 1516associated with the Decision Stage 1504 can be the global validitystrength rating determined by the data analysis system 220 for all casesbefore the Board at the Decision Stage (e.g., acDTIPatentStrength). Therating 1522 associated with the Final Stage 1506 can be the globalvalidity strength rating determined by the data analysis system 220 forall cases before the Board at the Final Stage 1506 (e.g.,acFDPatentStrength). The rating 1526 associated with the Post-FinalStage 1508 can be the global validity strength rating determined by thedata analysis system 220 for all cases before the Board at thePost-Final Stage 1508 (e.g., acOPatentStrength).

While the foregoing implementations are described with respect to interpartes/post-grant reviewing proceedings, these implementations areequally applicable to district court litigation. For example, a validitystrength rating can be generated for different phases of the districtcourt litigation such as, without limitation, prior to any infringementcomplaint is filed (“Pre-Complaint Stage”), after the infringementcomplaint is filed but before any infringement contentions and/orinvalidity contentions is due (“Pre-Contentions Stage”), after any suchcontentions are due but before any claim construction/Markman hearing(“Pre-Markman Stage”), after claim construction/Markman hearing butbefore summary motions are due (“Pre-Summary Stage”), after summarymotions are due but before trial (“Pre-Trial Stage”), and after a juryverdict (in a jury trial) or bench verdict (bench trial) has beenrendered (“Post-Trial Stage”).

As an example, a validity strength rating for the Pre-Complaint Stagecan be determined using a process similar to that discussed above withrespect to the Pre-Petition Stage.

As another example, a validity strength rating for the Pre-ContentionsStage can be determined using attributes associated with the complaintincluding, without limitation, the name of the plaintiff and/ordefendant, the jurisdiction and venue in which the suit is brought, thenumber of counts, the basis of such counts (e.g., direct infringement,infringement by inducement, or contributory infringement), the types ofrelief sought (e.g., injunction or monetary damages), type of trialrequested (e.g., bench or jury trial), and if answer has been filed, thetypes of affirmative defenses asserted in the answer (e.g., laches,inequitable conduct, lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and thelike), the counsel and/or law firm representing the plaintiff and/ordefendant, and the number of patents asserted by the plaintiff.

As another example, a validity strength rating for the Pre-Markman Stagecan be determined using attributes associated with, for example,infringement contentions including information relating to the relevantaccused products and invalidity contentions including the number ofprior art cited, the types of prior art (e.g., patents, non-patentliterature, foreign publications, etc.), reputable strength of the priorart (e.g., based on the number of forward or backward references) thegrounds upon which the claims are alleged to be invalid (e.g.,anticipatory, obviousness, lack of written description, indefiniteness,patent-ineligible), and other types of affirmative defenses (e.g.,laches, inequitable conduct, equitable estoppel).

As another example, a validity strength rating for the Pre-Summary Stagecan be determined using attributes associated with, for example, thenumber of motions filed (e.g., motion to compel, motion to strike), thenumber of experts and/or consultants involved, the identity of suchexperts and/or consultants, the number of claim terms construed by acourt in the Markman hearing, and data associated with the presidingjudge ruling on similar types of motions and treatment of similarexperts' opinion.

As another example, a validity strength rating for the Pre-Trial Stagecan be determined using attributes associated with, for example, thenumber of motions in limine to be filed, the number of trial exhibits,the jurisdiction and venue for which jury instruction is to be prepared,the number of triable issues, and any data cited in trial briefs.

As yet another example, a validity strength rating for the Post-TrialStage can be determined using attributes associated with, for example,the type and number of claims infringed, not-infringed, determined to bevalid, determined to be invalid, determined to be enforceable, ordetermined to be unenforceable as determined by either the jury or thejudge as well as any underlying reasons behind such a ruling.

Like data and attributes associated with inter partes proceedings, dataand attributes associated with district court litigation can becollected in the same manner by the Data Mining/Analysis System 102. Forexample, the Data Mining/Analysis System 102 can extract these data andattributes from various court documents available via private and/orpublic sources. Then, relevant data can be extracted based on hundredsof attributes from such documents. Data analysis of the extracted datacan be performed to create building-block functions that can use theextracted data as inputs. These functions can then be assembled in themanner discussed above to create one or more predictive models thatgenerate predictive outputs. These functions, the extracted data anddata attributes, and predictive models can be stored along with data 204and/or data 206 in their respective database(s).

Further, like data and attributes associated with theinter-parte/post-grant review proceedings, the data analysis system 300can train and develop one or more analytical or statistical models usingthe model engine 302 that can be used to performrecommendation/prediction, clustering, association rule generation, andthe like. The inputs to the model engine 302 can include trainingparameters 304, training data 306, and untrained models 308, all ofwhich can be gathered using the information and data extracted by thedata mining system 202 to provide predictive analysis associated withdistrict court litigation. In sum, the Data Mining/Analysis System 102can process litigation data associated with different venues (e.g.,inter partes proceeding, post-grant review proceeding, declaratoryaction, district court litigation, or litigation before theInternational Trade Commission) in the same manner.

As discussed above, the data analysis system 220 can determine avalidity strength rating for a patent involving different phases oflitigation. In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 candetermine a validity strength rating for claims at different phases orwith different statuses. For example, where Patent “X” has 20 claims ofwhich claims 13-20 have no prior litigation history and claims 1-12 haveprior litigation history (e.g., litigated in another inter parteproceeding but no Final Decision was rendered due to settlement beforesuch Decision), the petitioner challenges 12 claims (e.g., claims 1-12)of which 8 (e.g., claims 1-8) are granted review but only 4 (e.g.,claims 1-4) are canceled by the Board, Patent “X” would have 16 claimsremaining of which four have been affirmed (e.g., claims 5-8).

In these implementations, the data analysis system 220 can determine afirst validity strength rating for claims that have not been litigatedor challenged previously (e.g., claims 13-20), a second validitystrength rating for claims that have been challenged in other litigationor claims with prior litigation history (e.g., claims 1-12), a thirdvalidity strength rating for claims that have been challenged (e.g.,claims 1-12), a fourth validity strength rating for claims that have notbeen challenged (e.g., claims 13-20), a fifth validity strength ratingfor claims that have been challenged but denied review (e.g., claims9-12), a sixth validity strength rating for claims that have beenchallenged and granted review (e.g., claims 1-8), a seventh validitystrength rating for claims that have been granted review but affirmed(e.g., claims 5-8), and an eight validity strength rating for claimsthat have been granted review and canceled by the Board (claims 1-4).

For example, the data analysis system 220 can first check the status ofa proceeding and determine the current stage of a proceeding (e.g., bylooking at the most recent document filed by the litigant based on datesuch as a preliminary response or the Board such as the Decision toInstitute Trial). Based on the status of the proceeding, the dataanalysis system 220 can determine which set(s) of claims have differentstatuses, and what validity strength rating to determine for each ofsuch set.

In some implementations, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth,seventh, and eighth validity strength ratings can be associated with adifferent weight factor to differentiate the strength of claims thathave a different status (e.g., claims not challenged, claims challenged,claims granted review, claims denied review, claims affirmed, and claimscanceled). The weight factor allows a deeper analysis to be performed todetermine the relative strength of different claims that have gonethrough different phases of litigation.

In some implementations, the weight factor for each of the first,second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth validitystrength ratings can be determined based on data unique to a respectivestage. For example, the weight factor associated with the first validitystrength rating can be determined (e.g., claims that have not beenlitigated or challenged previously) based on data and attributesavailable at the Pre-Petition Stage (e.g., data specific to the patentincluding class/subclass information, name of assignee, filing date,number of prior art cited on record, number of claims, and the like thatare available before any petition is filed); the weight factorassociated with the second validity strength rating can be determined(e.g., for claims that have been challenged in other litigation orclaims with prior litigation history) based on data and attributesassociated with those prior histories (e.g., any of TABLES A-Gassociated with the prior proceeding); the weight factor associated withthe third validity strength rating can be determined (e.g., for claimsthat have been challenged) based on data and attributes available at thePetition stage (e.g., those shown in TABLE A and/or TABLE B); the weightfactor associated with the fourth validity strength rating can bedetermined (e.g., for claims that have not been challenged) based ondata and attributes available at the Petition stage that can put extraemphasis on the claim types and the number of unchallenged claims (e.g.,system, device, method, beauregard, computer method, or computermedium); the weight factor associated with the fifth and sixth validitystrength ratings can be determined (e.g., for claims granted or deniedreview) available at the Decision Stage (e.g., those shown in TABLE A,TABLE B, TABLE C, and TABLE E); the weight factor associated with theseventh and eighth validity strength ratings can be determined (e.g.,for affirmed or canceled claims) based on data and attributes availableat the Final Stage (e.g., those in TABLE A, TABLE B, TABLE C, TABLE D,TABLE E, TABLE F, and TABLE G).

In some implementations, the foundation of the weight factor for thethird validity strength rating can be determined based on the ratiobetween total number of claims and the number of claims challenged; thefifth validity strength rating can be determined based on the ratiobetween the number of claims challenged and the number of claims deniedreview; the sixth validity strength rating can be determined based onthe ratio between the number of claims challenged and the number ofclaims granted review; the seventh validity strength rating can bedetermined based on the ratio between the number of claims grantedreview and the number of affirmed claims; and the eighth validitystrength rating can be determined based on the ratio between the numberof claims granted review and the number of canceled claims.

For example, the fifth validity strength rating can be determined bycalculating the ratio between the number of claims challenged (e.g., 12claims) and the number of claims denied review (e.g., 4 claims), or33.3%. In some implementations, this ratio can be applied as a weightfactor to the first validity strength rating. For example, assuming thefirst validity strength rating as determined by the data analysis system220 is 33 (e.g., as determined based on totalPSByPI, totalPSByPO, andtotalPSByPC), the fifth validity strength rating can be determined byapplying the ratio (33.3%) as an addition to the first validity strengthrating (e.g., 33+(33*33%), or 44).

Similarly, where the ratio between the number of claims granted review(e.g., 8 claims) and the number of claims affirmed (e.g., 4 claims) is50%, the seventh validity strength rating can be determined by applyingthe ratio (50%) as an addition to the fifth strength rating (e.g.,44+(44*50%), or 66). In some instances the weight factor can bring avalidity strength rating over the original rating scale (e.g., over100). Accordingly, in some implementations, normalization can also beused between the first through eighth validity strength ratings so as tomaintain the new ratings on proper scale (e.g., 0-100).

The foregoing implementations have been described with respect to thedetermination of a validity strength rating for each set of claimsassociated with different status at a particular stage such that thedata analysis system 220 can ascertain the validity strength rating of aparticular set of claims as of that stage. For example, after a petitionhas been filed, the data analysis system 220 can immediately assess anddetermine the validity strength rating for the challenged claims as wellas the unlitigated claims. As another example, after the Board hasissued a Decision to Institute Trial, the data analysis system 220 canimmediately assess and determine the validity strength rating for thoseclaims that have been granted review as well as those denied review. Asyet another example, after the Board has issued a Final Decision, thedata analysis system 220 can immediately assess and determine thevalidity strength rating for those claims that have been affirmed aswell as canceled by the Board.

As shown in FIG. 13, the rating 1305 can include a rating forunlitigated claims (e.g., the first validity strength rating) and arating for claims with prior litigation history (e.g., a second validitystrength rating). Similarly, the rating 1307 can include a rating forclaims that have been challenged (e.g., the third validity strengthrating) and a rating for claims that have not been challenged (e.g., thefourth validity strength rating) by the petitioner; the rating 1309 caninclude a rating for claims that have been granted review (e.g., thesixth validity strength rating) and a rating for claims that have beendenied review (e.g., the fifth validity strength rating); and the rating1311 can include a rating for claims that have been affirmed (e.g., theseventh validity strength rating) and a rating for claims that have beencanceled (e.g., the eighth validity strength rating).

In some implementations, the rating 1305 can include a rating associatedwith the Pre-Petition StageAs discussed previously, not all claims in apatent are litigated or challenged. For example, the petitioner mightchallenge only claims 1-5 but not claims 6-20 in a patent. Similarly, aaccused infringer might challenge the validity of claims 1-9 when thePatent Owner has only asserted those claims against the accusedinfringer.

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can determine avalidity strength rating for the unlitigated claims (e.g., claims 6-20in the above example). The validity strength rating for the unlitigatedclaims can be determined, in some implementations, based on the totalnumber of claims and the number of claims having granted review (e.g.,UL=TC−CG where UL=the number of unlitigated claims; TC=the total numberof claims in a patent; and CG=the number of claims granted review by theBoard).

As an example, where a patent contains 20 claims in which claims 1-9were challenged but only claims 1-6 were granted review with claims 1-4canceled and claims 5-6 affirmed, the number ofunlitigated claims UL isthen equal to 14 (e.g., 20−6). In these implementations, the dataanalysis system 220 can determine the same validity strength rating tothese unlitigated claims as those assigned in the Pre-Petition Stage(e.g., using PPPatentStrength).

As discussed above, the data analysis system 220 can also determine thevalidity strength rating of the claims remaining after Final Decision(e.g., Post-Final Decision or Post-Trial Stage). Using the exampleabove, the data analysis system 220 can determine the validity strengthrating for claims 5-20. In some implementations, the validity strengthrating of the claims remaining RC can be determined based on TC and CNor UL and CA (e.g., RC=TC−CN=UL+CA where RC=the number of remainingunlitigated and affirmed claims, TC=the total number of claims in apatent; CN=the number of canceled claims; and CA=the number of affirmedclaims). Using the example above, the number of remaining unlitigatedand affirmed claims RC is 16 (e.g., 20−4 or 14+2).

In some implementations, if RC is zero, which indicates that all claimsin a patent have been canceled, the data analysis system 220 candetermine the validity strength rating of this patent to be zero (e.g.,all claims have been ruled as invalid by the Board).

In some implementations, where RC is not zero, the data analysis system220 can determine the validity strength rating based on the ratio of CAand RC. If CA/RC is greater or equal to a predetermined threshold (e.g.,0.99 or 99%). the data analysis system 220 can determine that most, ifnot all, of the remaining claims have been affirmed, in which case thedata analysis system 220 can determine the validity strength rating forthese unlitigated or affirmed claims to be in the top 99% percentile.

If CA/RC is less than 0.99, the data analysis system 220 can determinethe validity strength rating for this patent based on totalPSByPI (e.g.,using CA/RC), totalPSByPO, and totalPSByPC in the manner discussedabove.

In some instances, there are more than one proceeding that involve asame patent. For example, there might be two inter partes proceedingsfiled by different petitioners challenge claims of the same patent. Whena patent is involved in more than one proceeding, there are threepossible event types that may occur.

The first type is that different litigation may involve different setsof claims (e.g., a first case has petitioner A challenging the validityof claims 1, 2, and 3; and a second case has petitioner B (who could bethe same real party of interest) challenging the validity of claims 4,5, and 6.

The second type is that different litigation may involve overlappingsets of claims (e.g., a first case challenges the validity of claims 1,2, and 3; and a second case challenges the validity of claims 2, 3, and4).

The third type is that different litigation may involve the exact sameset of claims (both a first case and a second case challenge thevalidity of claims 1, 2, and 3).

Because proceedings with overlapping claims could affect the integrityand reliability of the validity strength rating, in someimplementations, the data analysis system 220 can implement a de-overlapprocedure in removing duplicate data so that data involving the samepatent in multiple cases are not counted twice that may otherwise skewthe true value of the validity strength rating.

For example, the data analysis system 220 can check whether a particularpatent is involved in more than one IPR or CBM case. If so, this canindicate that there may be overlapping claims (e.g., the second type) orcompletely identical claims (e.g., the third type). If there areoverlapping but not completely identical claims, the data analysissystem 220 can check whether CA+CN=CG (where CA=sum of all claimsaffirmed from that patent's litigation history; CN=sum of all claimscanceled from that patent's litigation history; and CG=sum total of allclaims granted review from that patent's litigation history). If the sumof CA and CN is not equal to CG, this can indicate that there areoverlapping claims that need to be resolved. In some implementations,the data analysis system 220

To identify related cases or proceedings, the data mining system 202 canmine the various content and documents shown in TABLES A-F to locatedata identifying related cases (e.g., from petition, preliminaryresponse, mandatory notice, Decision to (Not) Institute, and FinalDecision). The data mining system 202 then can discount one of the twoduplicates in determining the validity strength rating (e.g., under thethird type discussed above). For example, from all non-duplicate casesgiven a particular patent number, the data mining system 202 can sum upall the canceled claims for these cases. If the number of all canceledclaims is the same as the total number claims of the patent, whichindicates that the patent is completely invalidated by the Board, thedata mining system 202 can update that patent's validity strength ratingto zero.

However, unlike the third type, the first type involves different numberof claims for the same patent. In these implementations, the data miningsystem 202 can account both proceedings in generating the validitystrength rating. By determining whether a patent has been involved inmore than one proceeding, the data mining system 202 can fine tune thevalidity strength rating by not double counting the same statisticsassociated with the same patent twice in its analytical or statisticalmodels.

As discussed previously, the data mining system 202 can determine avalidity strength rating for claims of a patent prior to the filing of apetition (e.g., Pre-Petition Stage). For example, the data mining system202 can determine the validity strength rating by utilizing one or moreanalytical or statistical models created based on data and attributesassociated with the patent number, patent owner, patent class, patentsub-class, patent examiner (primary or supervisory or junior), the ageof the patent, the number of prior art references cited, the identity ofthe inventors, the law firm or counsel prosecuting the patent, and thenumber of claims in a patent.

Other data or attributes can also be used. For example, the data miningsystem 202 can first select one or more variables, perform regressionanalysis to determine the relationship between these selected variablesand possible outcomes such as one or more claims likely to be granted ordenied review, canceled, or affirmed. If the regression analysisindicates a theoretical relationship (e.g., above a particularpredetermined threshold), the data mining system 202 then can includethe one or more selected variables in creating one or more analytical orstatistical models that can be used to determine the validity strengthrating.

For example, based on regression analysis, the data mining system 202can determine that number of claims in a patent has a direct impact onthe validity or invalidity of a patent. This determination can be basedon the fact that the greater the number of claims, the greater number ofclaims that can be challenged by a petitioner. The greater number ofclaims exposed to litigation can increase the chance for the accusedinfringer or the petitioner to get at least one of those claimscanceled, which in turn would lower the rating of the patent. In someimplementations, the data mining system 202 can look at the averagetotal claims among all patents (or among all patents in a class/subclassor all patents for a patent owner). If a given patent has more claimsthan that of an “average” patent, then this factor can be used by thedata mining system 202 in determining whether to lower the validitystrength rating of the patent. Similarly, if the given patent has fewerclaims than an “average” patent, then the data mining system 202 canincrease its validity strength rating accordingly.

Spider Graph

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can generate anddisplay a spider graph in the comparison section 1302 to indicate twosets of data that graphically show the validity strength of a patentcompared to the validity strength of an “average” patent. In someimplementations, these two sets of data can include patent data andglobal data. In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 candetermine the validity strength rating based on a global patent standardrating (globalPatentStandard( )), a global patent owner standard rating(globalPatentOwnerStandard( )), a global class standard rating(globalClassStandard( )), a patent validity factor(patentValidityFactor( )), a patent owner validity factor(patentOwnerValidityFactor( )), and a class validity factor(classValidityFactor( )), each of which will be discussed in greaterdetail below.

In some implementations, the globalPatentStandard( ) can represent avalue that is averaged over all patentIDs(avg(patentValidityFactor(patentID))); the globalPatentOwnerStandard( )can represent a value that is averaged over all patent owners(avg(patentOwnerValidityFactor(patentOwner))); and theglobalClassStandard( ) can represent a value that is averaged over allclasses (avg(classValidityFactor(classID))).

In some implementations, for the patent data, the PIStrength can be usedas the patentValidityFactor ( ) with a patent identifier (i.e., patentnumber) as an input; the POStrength can be used as thepatentOwnerValidityFactor ( ) with the name of a patent owner as aninput; and the PCStrength can be used as the classValidityFactor ( )with a class (or subclass) as an input.

In some implementations, the PIStrength can be determined by determiningthe cancel ratio of the number of claimed canceled by the Board (“CN”)and total number of claims in the patent (“TC”). For example, assumingthat Patent “X” contains twenty claims all of which were granted reviewby the Board but only five were canceled at the Final Decision stage,the cancel ratio would be 0.25 (e.g., 5/20). The PIStrength would thenbe calculated by determining 1-CN/TC.

For the global data, in some implementations, the strength of a patentthat has gone to the Final Decision stage (called “acPIStrength”) can beused as the globalPatentStandard( ); the strength associated with apatent owner for a patent that has gone to the Final Decision stage(called “acPOStrength”) can be used as the globalPatentOwnerStandard( );and the strength associated with a patent class for a patent that hasgone to the Final Decision stage (or class and subclass) (called“acPCStrength”) can be used as the globalClassStandard( ).

In some implementations, the acPIStrength can be determined based on anaffirmance ratio (e.g., 1−CN/TC where CN=the number of claims in apatent canceled by the Board and TC=the total number of claims in thepatent) and an acPIStrength multiplier. The acPIStrength multiplier, insome implementations, can be calculated by determining the number ofcases involving the same patent. For example, where Patent “X” has beeninvolved in two post-grant or inter-parte proceedings that have gonethrough Final Decision stage, the acPIStrength multiplier can be equalto two.

Similarly, in some implementations, the acPOStrength can be determinedbased on the affirmance ratio and an acPOStrength multiplier. TheacPOStrength multiplier, in some implementations, can be calculated bydetermining the number of cases involving the same patent owner. Forexample, where patent owner “Y” has been involved in four post-grant orinter-parte proceedings that have gone through Final Decision stage, theacPIStrength multiplier can be equal to four.

Similarly, in some implementations, the acPCStrength can be determinedbased on the affirmance ratio and an acPCStrength multiplier. TheacPCStrength multiplier, in some implementations, can be calculated bydetermining the number of cases involving the same patent class. Forexample, where patent class “Z” has been involved in ten post-grant orinter-parte proceedings that have gone through Final Decision stage(e.g., ten patents classified under patent class “Z” have been involvedin post-grant or inter partes proceedings), the acPCStrength multipliercan be equal to ten.

TABLE 8 Variable Factor patentValidityFactor PIStrengthclassValidityFactor PCStrength patentOwnerValidityFactor POStrengthglobalPatentStandard acPIStrength/totalPSAllPIsglobalPatentOwnerStandard acPOStrength/totalPSAllPOs globalClassStandardacPCStrength/totalPSAllPCs

In these implementations, by looking at the “average” of all patentstrengths over all cases that went through final decision, a basis canbe formed to compare a specific patent strength. For example, if thestrength of Patent “X” is greater than the acPIStrength for an averagepatent, then this means that Patent “X” is stronger or likely to be morevalid than an average patent. In some implementations, if Patent “X” hasno prior history, meaning that the PIStrength is zero, the acPIStrengthcan be used to replace the PIStrength. Similarly, if there's no data forPOStrength and/or PCStrength, these parameters can be replaced by theacPOStrength and acPCStrength, respectively.

As an example, assuming Patent “X” corresponds to Patent Owner “Y” andClass “Z”. The patent data would then be equal to PIStrength(X),POStrength(Y), and PCStrength(Z). Based on these patent data, the dataanalysis system 220 can determine that the validity strength rating forPatent “X” is (PIStrength(5624695)+POStrength(Nike)+PCStrength(36))/3=0.In other words, the claims of this patent are likely to be invalid, andvery likely to be canceled. The data analysis system 220 can display aspider graph representative of this validity strength rating as follows:PIStrength(X)=0 on the Patent ID axis; POStrength(Y)=0 on the PatentOwner axis; and PCStrength(Z)=0 on the Patent Class axis.

For the global data, the data analysis system 220 can displayacPIStrength (or totalPSAllPIs) on the Patent ID axis; acPOStrength (ortotalPSAllPOs) on the Patent Owner axis; and acPCStrength (ortotalPSAllPCs) on the Patent Class axis.

FIG. 14 is an example screenshot of a spider graph generated based onpatent data and global data. Referring to FIG. 14, the spider graph 1400can be shown in a comparison section (e.g., comparison section 1302) ofthe analysis page 1300. The spider graph 1400 shows a first validitystrength rating 1402 and a second validity strength rating 1404associated with a particular patent identifier 1406. In someimplementations, the first validity strength rating 1402 can be thatshown as rating 1313 in FIG. 13 (which also can be validity strengthrating as determined at the Post-Final Decision Stage or Post-TrialStage).

The second validity rating 1404 can be associated with a global validitystrength rating taking into account of all existing cases in litigation,or all existing patents. The second validity strength rating 1404 can bedetermined in the same manner used to determine the first validitystrength raring 1402 but using all of the existing cases in litigationor existing patents as the bases (e.g., avg(global PatentStandard()+globalPatentOwnerStandard( )+globalClassStandard( ))).

As shown, the spider graph can include three datapoints associated withthe patent data representative of the patent rating associated with thepatent identifier 1406: namely, patent owner strength patent datapoint1412 (e.g., POStrength), patent history strength patent datapoint 1414(e.g., PIStrength), and patent class strength patent datapoint 1416(e.g., PCStrength).

Similarly, the spider graph can include three datapoints associated withthe global data representative of the global standard associated withthe patent identifier 1406: namely, patent owner strength globaldatapoint 1422 (e.g., acPOStrength), patent history strength globaldatapoint 1424 (e.g., acPIStrength), and patent class strength globaldatapoint 1426 (e.g., acPCStrength).

FIG. 16 is a matrix of an example listing of validity strength ratingsthat can be determined by the data analysis system 220. For example, asdiscussed above, the data analysis system 220 can create analytical orstatistical models associated with different validity strength ratingsat different litigation phases, including for example, Pre-PetitionStage, Decision Stage, Final Stage, and Post-Final Stage. For example,under the Pre-Petition Stage, totalPSAllPXs (where X denotes” either“I”, “C” or “O”, for example) can be determined based on all cases orproceedings associated with the respective “PX” (e.g., totalPSAllPC isdetermined based on all cases associated with a particular class).

As an example, cases can be sorted based on patent class. For all casesassociated with a particular class, the total number of claims for eachpatent associated with that particular class can be extracted andsummed. Similarly, the total number of claims that have been canceled(e.g., in cases that fall under this particular class) can also beextracted and summed. The number of cases associated with that class canalso be determined. Then, the preliminary patent strength for this classcan be determined based on the number of cases and the total number ofaffirmed claims (e.g., as determined based on the total number of claimsand the total number of canceled claims). Then, the preliminary patentstrength for each and every class can be summed to arrive at thetotalPSAllPC.

Similarly, totalPSByPX (where X denotes” either “I”, “C” or “O”, forexample) can be determined based on cases or proceedings associated witha particular “PX” (e.g., totalPSByPC is determined based on only thosecases associated with a particular class). Using the example above, thetotalPSByPX can be determined as the preliminary validity strength basedon the exemplary process discussed above for totalPSAllPC (e.g., withoutlast step wherein each and every class are summed).

Regarding the PPPatentStrengthAllPXs and PPPatentStrengthByPXs (where Xdenotes” either “I”, “C” or “O”, for example), a process similar to thatfor totalPSAllPC can be used. However, in this process, attributes suchas the total number of claims challenged can be used in place of thenumber of canceled claims.

Regarding the DTIPatentStrengthAllPXs and DTIPatentStrengthByPXs (whereX denotes” either “1”, “C” or “0”, for example), a process similar tothat for totalPSAllPC can be used. However, in this process, attributessuch as the total number of claims granted review and the total numberof claims challenged can be used in place of the number of canceledclaims and the total number of claims in a patent.

Regarding the FDPatentStrengthAllPXs and FDPatentStrengthByPXs (where Xdenotes” either “I”, “C” or “O”, for example), a process similar to thatfor totalPSAllPC can be used. However, in this process, attributes suchas the total number of claims granted review can be used in place of thetotal number of claims in a patent.

Regarding the acStrength, the data analysis system 220 can determine theacStrength by determining an average of the totalPSByPX. Similarly, thedata analysis system 220 can determine the acPSduringPP, acPSduring DTI,and acPSduring FD by determining an average of thePPPatentStrengthAllPXs, DTI PatentStrengthAllPXs, andFDPatentStrengthAllPXs, respectively.

Regarding the patentvaliditystrength(PI), this parameter can bedetermined by determining an average of totalPSByPX with PO and PCassociated with the given PI.

Regarding the PSduringPP(PI), this parameter can be determined bydetermining an average of PPPatentStrengthByPX with PO and PC associatedwith the given PI. In some implementations, the PSduringPP parameter canbe displayed as 1442 shown in FIG. 14.

Regarding the PSduringDTI(PI), this parameter can be determined bydetermining an average of DTIPatentStrengthByPX with PO and PCassociated with the given PI. In some implementations, the PSduringDTIparameter can be displayed as 1444 shown in FIG. 14.

Regarding the PSduringFD(PI), this parameter can be determined bydetermining an average of FDPatentStrengthByPX with PO and PC associatedwith the given P1. In some implementations, the PSduringFD parameter canbe displayed as 1446 shown in FIG. 14.

In general, the validity strength ratings associated with thePre-Petition Stage allows a user to understand how likely the claims ofa patent will be canceled. The more claims canceled, the weaker thepatent is. This information can then be used to compare the patent amongits peers within an attribute: compare a patent ID among all otherpatent IDs, compare a patent owner to among all, etc.

Similarly, the validity strength ratings associated with the DecisionStage allows a user to understand how well a patent will perform duringthe pre-DTI phase, or post initial petition phase. A strong patent willprevent a petitioner from challenging too many of its claims. It willlimit damage by forcing the petitioner to challenge only a smallfraction of the claims.

Similarly, the validity strength ratings associated with the Final Stageallows a user to understand how well a patent will perform during DTI.The result, pre-FD, is the number of challenged claims that are grantedreview. A strong patent (ID/Owner/Class) will somehow minimize thenumber of claims granted review.

Finally, the validity strength ratings associated with the Post-FinalStage allows a user to understand how well a patent will perform duringFD. The results, post-FD, is the number of claims canceled. A strongpatent (ID/Owner/Class) will minimize the number of claims canceled fromamong the number of claims granted review. More important to a PatentOwner is the number of claims affirmed (CA=CG−CN). Affirmed claims makethe patent stronger. A patent that loses many claims by cancellation,but retains a few by affirmation is quite strong.

While the foregoing implementations describe validity strength ratingsthat are based on patent owner, patent identifier, and patent class, itshould be noted that the attributes are not restricted to only patentowner, patent identifier, and patent class. Patent owner, patentidentifier, and patent class are merely used as examples to illustratethe various validity strength ratings offered by the data analysissystem 220, and to demonstrate how these ratings offer various analyticsbenefits to the users. The data analysis system can also use otherattributes such as those described in TABLES A, B, C, and D as inputs todetermine validity strength ratings associated with those attributes.

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can also considerthe number of prior art references cited in a patent (e.g., forwardcitations) as part of the validity strength rating analysis. Forexample, where a particular patent has 50 prior art references citedtherein, then this factor can be used as an attribute to compare similarpatents in similar class to determine an appropriate “forward” impact onthe validity strength rating. This impact can be expressed through ananalytical or statistical model created by the data analysis system 220.The outcome of the model can then be used as a factor in determining anyof the validity strength rating discussed above. In this example, where50 prior art references have been cited, it is indicative of thestrength of the patent to overcome various prior art, which may resultin a stronger patent (and therefore with a higher validity strengthrating than another patent with only two prior art references citedtherein). In some implementations, this “forward” technique can also beadopted in generating the topology analytics shown in FIG. 22.

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can also considerthe number of patents and/or publications citing a particular patent(e.g., reverse citations) to measure the strength of that patent. Forexample, where 36 patents cite to a particular patent as a reference, oras a prior art, the data analysis system 220 can use this information todevelop analytical or statistical models that would determine the impactof this “reverse” reference on the strength of this patent. Similar toforward citations, this impact can be expressed through an analytical orstatistical model created by the data analysis system 220. The outcomeof the model can then be used as a factor in determining any of thevalidity strength rating discussed above. In some implementations, this“reverse” technique can also be adopted in generating the topologyanalytics shown in FIG. 22.

In some implementations, based on the forward and/or reversecitation(s), the data analysis system 220 can also generate a usagescore indicative of how strong a prior art reference is for use as aprior art to invalidate a patent or patent publication. As indicativeabove, the forward citation and reverse citations can be used toindicate the potential impact of a patent. This impact can be used as afactor in determining the usage score. All factors that can be used fordetermining the usage score can include those shown in TABLE A (but notthose factors associated with inter parte or post grant proceedings ifthat patent has not been the subject of such a proceeding).

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can determine athe validity strength rating (at or prior to different phases, forclaims with the same or different statuses) based on an unweightedapproach.

In some implementations, the unweighted approach can consider theaforementioned factors, data, and attributes for all patents and/or allclasses and/or all patent owners. For example, the data analysis system220 can determine the patentValidityFactor for all patents by averagingthe PIStrength for all cases associated with that patent. As anotherexample, the data analysis system 220 can determine theclassValidityFactor for all classes by averaging the PCStrength for allcases associated with that patent. In these implementations, theunweighted approach allows some patents or some classes to appear moreoften than others, but at the same time, discounts these duplicates bynot weighing the factors for each class when averaging.

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can determine athe validity strength rating (at or prior to different phases, forclaims with the same or different statuses) based on a weightedapproach. For example, if a patent has been a subject in multipleproceedings but involves different claims, these multiple proceedingswill be counted (as opposed to discounted) in determining the validitystrength rating.

Counsel Record

In some implementations, the data analysis system 220 can also provideinformation associated with a particular counsel. In someimplementations, a user can access the “winning” and “losing” recordassociated with this counsel. For example, as discussed above, the datamining system 202 can apply a particular pattern recognition (e.g.,“registration no.”, “reg. no.”, “registration number”, “reg. number”,and the like) to the legal documents to extract information associatedwith a legal counsel's registration or bar number. Based on thisinformation, the data analysis system 220 can analysis each and everyproceeding and litigation in which this counsel is named (e.g., bychecking the presence of legal counsel's registration number). Then, ananalytical or statistical model can be built to determine a variety ofattributes associated with the cases or proceedings involving thisparticular counsel.

As an example, if the attribute of interest is the counsel'sregistration or bar number, the user can first enter this registrationor bar number, and the data analysis system 220 can then analysis eachand every proceeding and litigation in which this counsel's registrationor bar number appears. An analytical or analytical or statistical modelassociated with this registration or bar number can then be built,including, for example, an analytical or statistical model associatedwith the number of cases this attorney is a named counsel for apetitioner that was terminated before reaching Final Decision due toparties' settlement, the number of cases this attorney is a namedcounsel for a petitioner that resulted in at least one claim grantedreview by the Board, the number of cases this attorney is a namedcounsel for a petitioner that resulted in at least one claim canceled bythe Board, the number of cases this attorney is a named counsel for apetitioner that resulted in all claims canceled by the Board, and acancel-to-affirm ratio for cases in which this attorney is a namedcounsel for a Petitioner.

As another example, an analytical or statistical model associated withthis registration or bar number can then be built, including, forexample, an analytical or statistical model associated with the numberof cases this attorney is a named counsel for a patent owner that wasterminated before reaching Final Decision due to parties' settlement,the number of cases this attorney is a named counsel for a patent ownerthat resulted in at least one claim denied review by the Board, thenumber of cases this attorney is a named counsel for a patent owner thatresulted in at least one claim affirmed by the Board, the number ofcases this attorney is a named counsel for a patent owner that resultedin all claims affirmed by the Board, and a cancel-to-affirm ratio forcases in which this attorney is a named counsel for a patent owner.

Although the foregoing implementations have been described with respectto a counsel's registration or bar number, other information can also beused and models created from which meaningful outcomes can be displayedto the user. These information can include, for example, those shown inTABLEs A-D to create models E-G. As an example, the data mining system202 can extract the number of motions to amend, motions to exclude, andrequests rehearing associated with a particular counsel, and the dataanalysis system 220 can then analyze these extracted documents to createmodels indicative of the counsel's winning and losing records associatedwith these motions and requests.

FIG. 17A is a screenshot displaying the counsel record associated with apetitioner. As shown in FIG. 17A, a number of analytical or statisticalmodels can be developed to provide various counsel-related recordsassociated with a petitioner (e.g., petitioner's counsel), including thenumber of cases an attorney is a named counsel for a petitioner that wasterminated before reaching Final Decision due to parties' settlement,the number of cases this attorney is a named counsel for a petitionerthat resulted in at least one claim granted review by the Board, thenumber of cases this attorney is a named counsel for a petitioner thatresulted in at least one claim canceled by the Board, the number ofcases this attorney is a named counsel for a petitioner that resulted inall claims canceled by the Board, and a cancel-to-affirm ratio for casesin which this attorney is a named counsel for a Petitioner (e.g., aratio of 59:0 means this named counsel has canceled a total of 59 claimsin all cases compared to 0 claim affirmed by the opposing counsel inthose cases).

FIG. 17B is a screenshot displaying the counsel record associated with apatent owner. As shown in FIG. 17B, a number of analytical orstatistical models can be developed to provide various counsel-relatedrecords associated with a patent owner (e.g., patent owner's counsel),including the number of cases an attorney is a named counsel for apatent owner that was terminated before reaching Final Decision due toparties' settlement, the number of cases this attorney is a namedcounsel for a patent owner that resulted in at least one claim deniedreview by the Board, the number of cases this attorney is a namedcounsel for a patent owner that resulted in at least one claim affirmedby the Board, the number of cases this attorney is a named counsel for apatent owner that resulted in all claims affirmed by the Board, and acancel-to-affirm ratio for cases in which this attorney is a namedcounsel for a patent owner (e.g., a ratio of 0:153 means this namedcounsel has affirmed a total of 153 claims in all cases compared to 0claim canceled by the opposing counsel in those cases).

Additional Analytics

FIG. 18A is an example screenshot of “Parties” section viewed as aPetitioner. FIG. 18B is an example screenshot of “Parties” sectionviewed as a Patent Owner. Similar to the features shown in FIG. 17, thedata mining/analysis system 102 can develop a number of analytical orstatistical models to provide various parties-related analyticsassociated with a petitioner and a patent owner. For example, as shownin FIG. 18A, the data mining/analysis system 102 can develop analyticalor statistical models to identify the number of unexpired patents,number of employees with at least one patent, number of litigationinitiated by the selected petitioner with at least one claim affirmed,at least one claim canceled, all claims affirmed, or all claims canceledassociated with a petitioner. As another example, as shown in FIG. 18B,the data mining/analysis system 102 can develop analytical orstatistical models to identify the number of unexpired patents, numberof employees with at least one patent, number of litigation challenginga patent owner's patent with at least one claim affirmed, at least oneclaim canceled, all claims affirmed, and all claims canceled. FIG. 19Ais an example screenshot of “Legal Counsel” section viewed as aPetitioner. FIG. 19B is an example screenshot of “Legal Counsel” sectionviewed as a Patent Owner. Similar to the features shown in FIG. 17, thedata mining/analysis system 102 can develop a number of analytical orstatistical models to provide various counsel or law firm specificanalytics associated with counsel representing a petitioner (FIG. 19A)or a patent owner (FIG. 19B). The analytics can include the numbers andidentities of all clients represented (e.g., “Google, Inc,” “Apple,Inc.”) or all judges presiding over one or more cases in which thecounsel was the counsel of record.

FIG. 20 is an example screenshot of the “Patent” section. As discussedpreviously, the data mining/analysis system 102 can develop one or moreanalytical or statistical models based on attributes and/or variablessuch as those shown in TABLES A-G. As illustrated in FIG. 20, the“Patent” section can display analytics such as, for a selected patent,whether there's prior litigation associated with the selected patent,the expiration date with the selected patent, the number of claimsaffirmed or canceled by PTAB with the selected patent as well as thevalidity strength rating for affirmed claims, the validity strengthrating for unchallenged claims, the patent owner strength, the patentclass strength, and the patent history strength.

Prior Art Analytics

In some implementations, the data mining system 202 can mine all theprior art references cited in each case or proceeding, and the dataanalysis system 220 can associate these references with one or moreattributes or analytical or statistical models to determine the impactof a particular prior art on a particular patent. For example, the dataanalysis system 220 can associate a particular prior art with aparticular owner or class (or another attributes). The number of theprior art references associated with a particular owner and class canthen be used as part of the analytical or statistical developmentprocess by the data analysis system 220 to determine their correlation,if any. The data mining system 202 can also mine all incoming documentsfed into the data mining/analysis system 102 to identify additionalprior art that may be relevant to a particular patent.

FIG. 21A is an example screenshot of a listing of prior art referencesand potential prior art references that may be relevant to a selectedpatent (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 7,666,369). As shown, the datamining/analysis system 102 displays eight prior art references, each ofwhich is deemed to be prior art based on attributes mined from thesereferences and analyzed in relation to the attributes associated withthe selected patent. For prior art references where one or moreattributes cannot be determined such that it is unclear whether aparticular reference is a prior art, those references may be listedunder the “Potential Prior Arts” listing, as shown in FIG. 21B. In someimplementations, the listing of prior art references and potential priorart references as shown in FIGS. 21A and 21B can be displayed as part ofthe “Patent” section shown in FIG. 20.

In some implementations, the data mining system 202 and the dataanalysis system 220 can employ analytical or statistical models tocreate the example listings shown in FIGS. 21A and 21B based on therelationship between the extracted prior art and, for example, patentowner, patent class, prior litigation history, other attributesdiscussed in TABLEs, A, B, C, and D, and any of the validity strengthratings discussed above. The listings can indicate and rank each priorart reference based on this relationship to identify, for example, themost relevant prior art for a particular case or proceeding. As oneexample, in FIG. 21, U.S. Pat. No. 7,282,186 is listed above U.S. Pat.No. 4,597,785 to indicate that U.S. Pat. No. 7,282,186 is likely astronger prior art than U.S. Pat. No. 4,597,785. As another example, thelistings can indicate, based on the foregoing relationship, that thereare 256 prior art references associated with class “438” (semiconductordevice manufacturing process) under which a particular patent isclassified. Each of these references can then be ranked based on, forexample, their respective strength. In some implementations, thestrength of each prior art reference can be determined based on thevalidity strength rating of the selected patent in which the prior artreference is listed. In some implementations, the strength of each priorart reference can also be determined based on the number of claimschallenged, the number of claims granted review, the number of claimsdenied review, the number of claims affirmed, and the number of claimedcanceled in cases involving that particular patent.

For example, the data analysis system 220 can consider a prior artreference “X” as particular strong where the prior art reference “X” wascited in a proceeding “Y” involving patent “Z” in which all claims ofpatent “Z” were canceled or ruled invalid because of the prior artreference “X.”

As another example, the data analysis system 220 can consider a priorart reference “A” as particular weak where the prior art reference “A”was cited in a proceeding “B” involving patent “C” in which all claimsof patent “C” were affirmed or ruled valid.

These implementations, however, can use any of the attributes describedin TABLEs, A, B, C, and D to determine the relevant strength (andranking) of each prior art reference. For example, the data analysissystem 220 can also use the identification of the assignee orinventor(s) associated with the prior art reference as a factor indetermining the strength of a particular reference (e.g., inventors suchas “Alexander Graham Bell” or “Albert Einstein” or companies such as“Towle Silversmiths” would generally command a greater strength thanother entities).

In some implementations, the ranking can also be based on a particulartime period. For example, HDMI (High-definition multimedia interface)was first designed in December, 2012. Any prior art reference (patent orpublication that has a filing or publication date that pre-datesDecember 2012) can be given a higher ranking than those that have alater date. This is because prior art references that are close to thedate of design, discovery, or idea conception are more likely be“original” such that it is less likely that those references pertain toimprovements or new discoveries that are just an obvious version overthe original one.

From a user perspective, prior art analytics are simple and intuitive.With a selected patent, the data mining/analysis system 102 can processthe selected patent to generate relevant prior art search results thatinclude U.S. patents and publications, foreign patents and publications,and non-patent literature. Based on the incoming documents, the datamining/analysis system 102 can also mine and identify certified andnon-certified translation, when available, to help its users understandand review prior art references written in foreign languages. As thedata mining/analysis system 102 receives and processes new data weekly,the data mining/analysis system 102 can update its underlying analyticsto allow for refined search results. This can allow only the mostrelevant search results known to the data mining/analysis system 102 tobe listed and displayed to the users.

Topology Analytics

Patents are financial intangible assets. IP stakeholders invest inpatents because of their potential economic and growth impact onbusinesses. Patent investment enables IP stakeholders to supportbusinesses to not only create new revenue streams and maximize returnvalues through exclusive and non-exclusive licensing, it also protectsand improves market position that helps businesses sustain long-termgrowth. Sustainable investment requires a holistic approach with ongoingevaluation to identify rare opportunities and unknown threats. Yet,there's no concrete methodology to identify the “influencers,” or thosepatents that have great potential investment values. With six millionactive patents, this is akin to finding a hair-strand in a haystack.Their strengths and weaknesses are generally unknown, leaving one toguess whether the patent of interest is a hair-strand or hay-straw.

In some implementations, the data mining/analysis system 102 can providediscovery functions and research analyses that enable users to discoverand invest in under-appreciated or underutilized patents, or to conductdue diligence on patents for deals where IP is the driving catalyst. Thedata mining/analysis system 102 can integrate quantitative andqualitative methods to help our clients visualize under-appreciated orunderutilized patents quickly and efficiently.

FIG. 22 is an example of a screenshot of discovery functions andresearch analyses in the form of topology analytics. In someimplementations, the data mining/analysis system 102 can providetopology analytics that offer data visualization and interactivegraphics that allow U.S. patents that have potential impact in theirrespective technology sectors to be visually identified quickly andefficiently. The data mining/analysis system 102 displays the selectedpatent's proprietary analytics, and compares the analytics against otherrelated patents to give the users a full scope of the potential value ofthe selected patent in the identified technology sector. As shown inFIG. 22, each circle represents a particular patent, and the “link”identifies the relationships between the connected patents. A size ofthe circle can also be used to represent the impact, value, or strengthof a particular patent. For example, users can use the topologyanalytics and the size of the circles to identify the territorial impactof a particular patent (in connection with those patents that areconnected to this patent), or to evaluate competitors' patent portfolioon product launches.

In some implementations, to generate the topology analytics, any of thevariables and attributes (or combinations thereof) described in TABLESA-G can be used. Similarly, forward citations, backward citations,validity strength ratings, or a combination thereof can be used togenerate the topology analytics. For example, in some implementations, aselected patent's relationship with other patents can be identified anddisplayed to the users based on associated technology, patent owner, orrelevant keywords used in those patents. In some implementations, therelationship can be enhanced by ranking each of the patents in eachsubset (e.g., using any of the ranking techniques discussed herein) toidentify patents that are likely to be “stronger” or “weaker” incomparison to other patents (which, as discussed above, can beillustrated based on a size of the circle). For example, a bigger circlecan be used to represent a patent that is stronger, more valuable, orhas a larger impact than patents with smaller circles.

In some implementations, where an investment value for a particular typeof patent is particularly known (e.g., based on incoming documentsidentifying known damages recovered from litigation or from businesstransactions identifying the purchase values of patents in a similarclass or category), this investment value can be fed to the datamining/analysis system 102 to identify patents that are more “valuable”for investment purposes. This “subset” of patents can also be linked toother subsets of patents to generate a comprehensive mapping thatidentifies the “stronger,” “weaker,” “more valuable,” and/or “lessvaluable” patents in a particular set of patents or patents related to aparticular industry or sector.

Whether users are interested in offensive-based portfolio to protect abusiness' core technology and drive profits, or defensive-focus strategyto capture unclaimed territory surrounding core technology that blocksalternative designs and ensures freedom to operate, the topologyanalytics shown in FIG. 22 can allow users to become acquainted with thecurrent patent landscape, understand the economic impact of grantedpatents on old and new, small to large businesses, and identify rapidtechnological trends that closely align with their investment interests.

With topology analytics, users can quickly identify which technology isand remains the most active, how patent filing patterns have changedover time, and where important technology battles and business stakesare taking place. Also, With topology analytics, a visual representationof information can be provided in a way that is easy to understand,allowing for stakeholders and contributors to quickly captureinformation they need for their own due diligence research.

FIG. 23 shows an example of a process 2300 for generating a validitystrength rating indicative of a likelihood that at least one claimassociated with a patent remains valid. As shown in FIG. 23, at 2302, aprocessor receives a plurality of legal documents associated with aplurality of legal cases, where at least one of the plurality of legalcases is associated with a legal proceeding, the legal proceedingassociated with a determination of a validity or invalidity of a patent,the patent containing at least one claim. At 2304, the plurality oflegal documents are stored in one or more databases. At 2306, theprocessor applies one or more predetermined patterns to the plurality oflegal documents to identify reference data. At 2308, the reference datais analyzed to develop one or more analytical models, each statisticalmodel pertaining to a different analytics parameter associated with adifferent attribute of the plurality of the legal documents. At 2310,the validity or invalidity of the patent is assessed based on the one ormore analytical models. At 2312, a validity strength rating is generatedbased on the assessment, the validity strength rating indicative of alikelihood that at least one claim associated with the patent remainsvalid after subsequent litigation.

Valid Claim Tracker

As discussed above, the data analysis 220 can determine a validitystrength rating for the remaining claims (e.g., affirmed and/orunchallenged claims). In some implementations, the data analysis system220 can track the claims remaining after litigation. For example, ifPatent “X” has 20 original claims and 15 claims (e.g., claims 1-15) havebeen canceled, then the data analysis system 220 can record theremaining claims (e.g., claims 16-20) in the database 204 (or data 206).This information can be displayed under the “Patent” section (e.g., FIG.20).

It should be noted that while the foregoing implementations have beendescribed with respect to review proceedings, these implementations areequally applicable to patent undergoing patent examination (e.g., duringpatent prosecution phase). For example, the data management system 100can include an interface that interfaces with the Patent Office's PatentApplication Information Retrieval (PAIR) to retrieve all documentssubmitted in a patent application during the patent examination phase.The mining system 202 can be used to extract data in these documentsincluding the number of claims, name of the supervising patent examinerand assistant patent examiner (if any), identification of assignee, allrelevant legal arguments, all prior art cited, amendment (if any) madeto the application including specification and the claims, and the like.These data can then be used to develop and train a model by the modelengine 302, and scored by the scoring engine 312. The resulting data canthen be used by the data analysis system 220 to generate predictiveanalytics (e.g., how likely a subject patent application will issue as apatent, how the given examiner will treat on a particular legal issue,whether an examiner interview affects the overall predicted probabilitythat the subject patent application will issue as a patent, and thelike).

Similarly, the subject matter described herein is not limited to interpartes and post-grant review proceedings, and is also applicable topatent appeals filed with and proceedings initiated and presided by thePTAB.

In sum, the data management system 100 can offer a company orpractitioner actionable intelligence before commencing a proceeding aswell as throughout the proceeding's lifecycle which helps to streamlinepetition preparation, reduce outside attorney and expert costs, andfacilitate settlement among the parties long before commencement oftrial.

Companies and practitioners can employ the data management system's 100legal analytics and business intelligence to help them become acquaintedwith the current patent landscape, understand the economic impact ofgranted patents on old and new, small to large businesses, and identifyrapid technological trends.

Generic Computer System

FIG. 9 shows an example of a computing device 900 and a mobile computingdevice 950 that can be used to implement the subject matter describedhere. The computing device 900 is intended to represent various forms ofdigital computers, such as laptops, desktops, workstations, personaldigital assistants, servers, blade servers, mainframes, and otherappropriate computers. The mobile computing device 950 is intended torepresent various forms of mobile devices, such as personal digitalassistants, cellular telephones, smart-phones, and other similarcomputing devices. The components shown here, their connections andrelationships, and their functions, are meant to be examples only, andare not meant to be limiting.

The computing device 900 includes a processor 902, a memory 904, astorage device 906, a high-speed interface 908 connecting to the memory904 and multiple high-speed expansion ports 910, and a low-speedinterface 912 connecting to a low-speed expansion port 914 and thestorage device 906. Each of the processor 902, the memory 904, thestorage device 906, the high-speed interface 908, the high-speedexpansion ports 910, and the low-speed interface 912, are interconnectedusing various busses, and can be mounted on a common motherboard or inother manners as appropriate. The processor 902 can process instructionsfor execution within the computing device 900, including instructionsstored in the memory 904 or on the storage device 906 to displaygraphical information for a GUI on an external input/output device, suchas a display 916 coupled to the high-speed interface 908. In otherimplementations, multiple processors and/or multiple buses can be used,as appropriate, along with multiple memories and types of memory. Also,multiple computing devices can be connected, with each device providingportions of the necessary operations (e.g., as a server bank, a group ofblade servers, or a multi-processor system).

The memory 904 stores information within the computing device 900. Insome implementations, the memory 904 is a volatile memory unit or units.In some implementations, the memory 904 is a non-volatile memory unit orunits. The memory 904 can also be another form of computer-readablemedium, such as a magnetic or optical disk.

The storage device 906 is capable of providing mass storage for thecomputing device 900. In some implementations, the storage device 906can be or contain a computer-readable medium, such as a floppy diskdevice, a hard disk device, an optical disk device, or a tape device, aflash memory or other similar solid state memory device, or an array ofdevices, including devices in a storage area network or otherconfigurations. Instructions can be stored in an information carrier.The instructions, when executed by one or more processing devices (forexample, processor 902), perform one or more methods, such as thosedescribed above. The instructions can also be stored by one or morestorage devices such as computer- or machine-readable mediums (forexample, the memory 904, the storage device 906, or memory on theprocessor 902).

The high-speed interface 908 manages bandwidth-intensive operations forthe computing device 900, while the low-speed interface 912 manageslower bandwidth-intensive operations. Such allocation of functions is anexample only. In some implementations, the high-speed interface 908 iscoupled to the memory 904, the display 916 (e.g., through a graphicsprocessor or accelerator), and to the high-speed expansion ports 910,which can accept various expansion cards (not shown). In theimplementation, the low-speed interface 912 is coupled to the storagedevice 906 and the low-speed expansion port 914. The low-speed expansionport 914, which can include various communication ports (e.g., USB,Bluetooth, Ethernet, wireless Ethernet) can be coupled to one or moreinput/output devices, such as a keyboard, a pointing device, a scanner,or a networking device such as a switch or router, e.g., through anetwork adapter.

The computing device 900 can be implemented in a number of differentforms, as shown in the figure. For example, it can be implemented as astandard server 920, or multiple times in a group of such servers. Inaddition, it can be implemented in a personal computer such as a laptopcomputer 922. It can also be implemented as part of a rack server system924. Alternatively, components from the computing device 900 can becombined with other components in a mobile device (not shown), such as amobile computing device 950. Each of such devices can contain one ormore of the computing device 900 and the mobile computing device 950,and an entire system can be made up of multiple computing devicescommunicating with each other.

The mobile computing device 950 includes a processor 952, a memory 964,an input/output device such as a display 954, a communication interface966, and a transceiver 968, among other components. The mobile computingdevice 950 can also be provided with a storage device, such as amicro-drive or other device, to provide additional storage. Each of theprocessor 952, the memory 964, the display 954, the communicationinterface 966, and the transceiver 968, are interconnected using variousbuses, and several of the components can be mounted on a commonmotherboard or in other manners as appropriate.

The processor 952 can execute instructions within the mobile computingdevice 950, including instructions stored in the memory 964. Theprocessor 952 can be implemented as a chipset of chips that includeseparate and multiple analog and digital processors. The processor 952can provide, for example, for coordination of the other components ofthe mobile computing device 950, such as control of user interfaces,applications run by the mobile computing device 950, and wirelesscommunication by the mobile computing device 950.

The processor 952 can communicate with a user through a controlinterface 958 and a display interface 956 coupled to the display 954.The display 954 can be, for example, a TFT (Thin-Film-Transistor LiquidCrystal Display) display or an OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode)display, or other appropriate display technology. The display interface956 can comprise appropriate circuitry for driving the display 954 topresent graphical and other information to a user. The control interface958 can receive commands from a user and convert them for submission tothe processor 952. In addition, an external interface 962 can providecommunication with the processor 952, so as to enable near areacommunication of the mobile computing device 950 with other devices. Theexternal interface 962 can provide, for example, for wired communicationin some implementations, or for wireless communication in otherimplementations, and multiple interfaces can also be used.

The memory 964 stores information within the mobile computing device950. The memory 964 can be implemented as one or more of acomputer-readable medium or media, a volatile memory unit or units, or anon-volatile memory unit or units. An expansion memory 974 can also beprovided and connected to the mobile computing device 950 through anexpansion interface 972, which can include, for example, a SIMM (SingleIn Line Memory Module) card interface. The expansion memory 974 canprovide extra storage space for the mobile computing device 950, or canalso store applications or other information for the mobile computingdevice 950. Specifically, the expansion memory 974 can includeinstructions to carry out or supplement the processes described above,and can include secure information also. Thus, for example, theexpansion memory 974 can be provide as a security module for the mobilecomputing device 950, and can be programmed with instructions thatpermit secure use of the mobile computing device 950. In addition,secure applications can be provided via the SIMM cards, along withadditional information, such as placing identifying information on theSIMM card in a non-hackable manner.

The memory can include, for example, flash memory and/or NVRAM memory(non-volatile random access memory), as discussed below. In someimplementations, instructions are stored in an information carrier. thatthe instructions, when executed by one or more processing devices (forexample, processor 952), perform one or more methods, such as thosedescribed above. The instructions can also be stored by one or morestorage devices, such as one or more computer- or machine-readablemediums (for example, the memory 964, the expansion memory 974, ormemory on the processor 952) (e.g., which can be non-transitory). Insome implementations, the instructions can be received, for example,over the transceiver 968 or the external interface 962.

The mobile computing device 950 can communicate wirelessly through thecommunication interface 966, which can include digital signal processingcircuitry where necessary. The communication interface 966 can providefor communications under various modes or protocols, such as GSM voicecalls (Global System for Mobile communications), SMS (Short MessageService), EMS (Enhanced Messaging Service), or MMS messaging (MultimediaMessaging Service), CDMA (code division multiple access), TDMA (timedivision multiple access), PDC (Personal Digital Cellular), WCDMA(Wideband Code Division Multiple Access), CDMA2000, or GPRS (GeneralPacket Radio Service), among others. Such communication can occur, forexample, through the transceiver 968 using a radio-frequency. Inaddition, short-range communication can occur, such as using aBluetooth, WiFi. or other such transceiver (not shown). In addition, aGPS (Global Positioning System) receiver module 970 can provideadditional navigation- and location-related wireless data to the mobilecomputing device 950, which can be used as appropriate by applicationsrunning on the mobile computing device 950.

The mobile computing device 950 can also communicate audibly using anaudio codec 960, which can receive spoken information from a user andconvert it to usable digital information. The audio codec 960 canlikewise generate audible sound for a user, such as through a speaker,e.g., in a handset of the mobile computing device 950. Such sound caninclude sound from voice telephone calls, can include recorded sound(e.g., voice messages, music files, etc.) and can also include soundgenerated by applications operating on the mobile computing device 950.

The mobile computing device 950 can be implemented in a number ofdifferent forms, as shown in the figure. For example, it can beimplemented as a cellular telephone 980. It can also be implemented aspart of a smart-phone 982, personal digital assistant, or other similarmobile device.

Various implementations of the systems and techniques described here canbe realized in digital electronic circuitry, integrated circuitry,specially designed ASICs (application specific integrated circuits),computer hardware, firmware, software, and/or combinations thereof.These various implementations can include implementation in one or morecomputer programs that are executable and/or interpretable on aprogrammable system including at least one programmable processor, whichcan be special or general purpose, coupled to receive data andinstructions from, and to transmit data and instructions to, a storagesystem, at least one input device, and at least one output device.

These computer programs (also known as programs, software, softwareapplications or code) include machine instructions for a programmableprocessor, and can be implemented in a high-level procedural and/orobject-oriented programming language, and/or in assembly/machinelanguage. As used herein, the terms machine-readable medium andcomputer-readable medium refer to any computer program product,apparatus and/or device (e.g., magnetic discs, optical disks, memory,Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs)) used to provide machine instructionsand/or data to a programmable processor, including a machine-readablemedium that receives machine instructions as a machine-readable signal.The term machine-readable signal refers to any signal used to providemachine instructions and/or data to a programmable processor.

Suitable processors for the execution of a program of instructionsinclude, by way of example, both general and special purposemicroprocessors, and the sole processor or one of multiple processors ofany kind of computer. Generally, a processor will receive instructionsand data from a read-only memory or a random access memory or both. Theessential elements of a computer are a processor for executinginstructions and one or more memories for storing instructions and data.Generally, a computer will also include, or be operatively coupled tocommunicate with, one or more mass storage devices for storing datafiles; such devices include magnetic disks, such as internal hard disksand removable disks; magneto-optical disks; and optical disks. Storagedevices suitable for tangibly embodying computer program instructionsand data include all forms of non-volatile memory, including by way ofexample semiconductor memory devices, such as EPROM, EEPROM, and flashmemory devices; magnetic disks such as internal hard disks and removabledisks; magneto-optical disks; and CD-ROM and DVD-ROM disks. Theprocessor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in,ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits).

To provide for interaction with a user, the systems and techniquesdescribed here can be implemented on a computer having a display device(e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor)for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointingdevice (e.g., a mouse or a trackball) by which the user can provideinput to the computer. Other kinds of devices can be used to provide forinteraction with a user as well; for example, feedback provided to theuser can be any form of sensory feedback (e.g., visual feedback,auditory feedback, or tactile feedback); and input from the user can bereceived in any form, including acoustic, speech, or tactile input.

The systems and techniques described here can be implemented in acomputing system that includes a back end component (e.g., as a dataserver), or that includes a middleware component (e.g., an applicationserver), or that includes a front end component (e.g., a client computerhaving a graphical user interface or a Web browser through which a usercan interact with an implementation of the systems and techniquesdescribed here), or any combination of such back end, middleware, orfront end components. The components of the system can be interconnectedby any form or medium of digital data communication (e.g., acommunication network). Examples of communication networks include alocal area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), and the Internet.

The computing system can include clients and servers. A client andserver are generally remote from each other and typically interactthrough a communication network. The relationship of client and serverarises by virtue of computer programs running on the respectivecomputers and having a client-server relationship to each other.

Although a few implementations have been described in detail above,other modifications are possible. For example, while a clientapplication is described as accessing the delegate(s), in otherimplementations the delegate(s) can be employed by other applicationsimplemented by one or more processors, such as an application executingon one or more servers In addition, the logic flows depicted in thefigures do not require the particular order shown, or sequential order,to achieve desirable results. In addition, other steps can be provided,or steps can be eliminated, from the described flows, and othercomponents can be added to, or removed from, the described systems.Accordingly, other implementations are within the scope of the followingclaims. While this specification contains many specifics, these shouldnot be construed as limitations on the scope of what can be claimed, butrather as descriptions of features that can be specific to particularimplementations. Certain features that are described in thisspecification in the context of separate implementations can also beimplemented in combination in a single implementation. Conversely,various features that are described in the context of a singleimplementation can also be implemented in multiple implementationsseparately or in any suitable subcombination. Moreover, althoughfeatures can be described above as acting in certain combinations andeven initially claimed as such, one or more features from a claimedcombination can in some cases be excised from the combination, and theclaimed combination can be directed to a subcombination or variation ofa subcombination. Similarly, while operations are depicted in thedrawings in a particular order, this should not be understood asrequiring that such operations be performed in the particular ordershown or in sequential order, or that all illustrated operations beperformed, to achieve desirable results. In certain circumstances,multitasking and parallel processing can be advantageous. Moreover, theseparation of various system components in the implementations describedabove should not be understood as requiring such separation in allimplementations.

A number of embodiments of the invention have been described.Nevertheless, it will be understood that various modifications can bemade without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.Accordingly, other embodiments are within the scope of the followingclaims.

One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that FIG. 2 ismerely exemplary. Given the disclosure herein, additional applicationsare possible within the scope and spirit of the present invention. Otherpossible applications to enhance the application servers 118 caninclude, but are not limited to, a queue manager, a load balancer, anAPI rate monitor, an ingestor, a multimedia decoder, a lexical parser, asemantic analyzer, an assimilator, a federated web services engine, aresponse delivery engine, and a cache engine.

Users can, in appropriate circumstances, limit or otherwise affect theoperation of the features disclosed in the specification. For example,users can be given an initial opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of thecollection or use of certain data or the activation of certain features.In addition, a user can change the manner in which the features areemployed, including for situations in which a user can have concernsregarding his privacy. Instructions can be provided to users to notifythe users regarding policies about the use of information, includingpersonally identifiable information and receipt information, and mannersin which the users can affect such use of information. For example, incases where a user does not desire endorsement of any kind, the userneed not submit financial account information (e.g., as no endorsementfund need be sent to the user).

Conditional language, such as, among others, “can”, “could”, “might”, or“can”, unless specifically stated otherwise, or otherwise understoodwithin the context as used, is generally intended to convey that certainembodiments optionally could include, while some other embodiments donot include, certain features, elements and/or steps. Thus, suchconditional language indicates, in general, that those features,elements and/or step are not required for every implementation orembodiment.

Various valuable aspects, benefits, capabilities, embodiments and/orfeatures have been described above which are not available in the priorart. Further, these various aspects, benefits, capabilities, embodimentsand/or features can be used independently or in combination, asappropriate to achieve a desired result; it is not necessary toincorporate every aspect, benefit, capability, embodiment and/or featureinto a single implementation in order to obtain specific desiredaspects, benefits, capabilities, and/or features.

What is claimed is:
 1. A system comprising: one or more computerprocessors; a data mining module, executable upon the one or morecomputer processors, configured to: receive a plurality of legaldocuments associated with a plurality of legal cases, where at least oneof the plurality of legal cases is associated with a legal proceeding,the legal proceeding associated with a determination of a validity orinvalidity of a patent, the patent containing at least one claim, thedata mining module configured to perform data mining on the plurality oflegal documents to identify structured, unstructured, or semi-structureddata in the plurality of legal documents; store the plurality of legaldocuments in one or more databases; and apply one or more predeterminedpatterns to the plurality of legal documents including the identifiedstructured, unstructured, or semi-structured data to identify referencedata; and a data analysis module, executable upon the one or morecomputer processors, configured to: analyze the reference data todevelop one or more analytical models, each analytical model pertainingto a different analytics parameter associated with a different attributeof the plurality of the legal documents; assess the validity orinvalidity of the patent based on the one or more analytical models;display the assessment of the validity or invalidity of the patent toone or more users through a dashboard graphical user interface on a webpage; receive a user input over a network, the user input selecting ordeselecting one or more queries through the dashboard graphical userinterface on the web page; update the analytical model including thedifferent analytics parameter based on the one or more selected ordeselected queries; and display an updated assessment through thedashboard graphical user interface on the web page based on the updatedanalytics model.
 2. The system of claim 1, wherein: the data analysismodule determines a probability that the patent is valid, invalid,partially valid, or partially invalid in assessing the validity orinvalidity of the patent, and displays the probability to the one ormore users.
 3. The system of claim 1, wherein: the data mining moduleretrieves historical data associated with the plurality of legaldocuments associated with the plurality of legal cases, each legaldocument having a plurality of corresponding attributes, the historicaldata indicating one or more historical trends associated with theplurality of corresponding attributes; and the data analysis moduledetermines the validity or invalidity of the patent based on the one ormore analytical models and the one or more historical trends.
 4. Thesystem of claim 1, wherein: the data mining module applies one or morepredetermined patterns to the plurality of legal documents to identifythe reference data from each of the plurality of legal documents; andthe data analysis module aggregates the reference data from each legaldocument to develop the one or more analytical models.
 5. The system ofclaim 1, wherein the data mining module receives the plurality of legaldocuments that include a first set of legal documents and a second setof legal documents, and applies one or more predetermined patterns tothe second set of legal documents to identify a second set of referencedata, the one or more predetermined patterns being the same or differentthan those applied to the first set of legal documents; and the dataanalysis module adjusts the one or more analytical models based on thesecond set of reference data.
 6. A method comprising: receiving, by aprocessor, a plurality of legal documents associated with a plurality oflegal cases, where at least one of the plurality of legal cases isassociated with a legal proceeding, the legal proceeding associated witha determination of a validity or invalidity of a patent, the patentcontaining at least one claim; performing data mining on the pluralityof legal documents to identify structured, unstructured, orsemi-structured data in the plurality of legal documents; storing theplurality of legal documents in one or more databases; applying, by theprocessor, one or more predetermined patterns to the plurality of legaldocuments including the identified structured, unstructured, orsemi-structured data to identify reference data; analyzing the referencedata to develop one or more analytical models, each analytical modelpertaining to a different analytics parameter associated with adifferent attribute of the plurality of the legal documents; assessingthe validity or invalidity of the patent based on the one or moreanalytical models; displaying the assessment of the validity orinvalidity of the patent to one or more users through a dashboardgraphical user interface on a web page; receiving a user input over anetwork, the user input selecting or deselecting one or more queriesthrough the dashboard graphical user interface on the web page; updatingthe analytical model including the different analytics parameter basedon the one or more selected or deselected queries; and displaying anupdated assessment through the dashboard graphical user interface on theweb page based on the updated analytics model.
 7. The method of claim 6,wherein: assessing the validity or invalidity of the patent includesdetermining a probability that the patent is valid, invalid, partiallyvalid, or partially invalid; and displaying the assessment includesdisplaying the probability to the one or more users.
 8. The method ofclaim 7, wherein: receiving a plurality of legal documents includesreceiving a petition from a petitioner challenging validity of thepatent, the petition being submitted to a governing office responsiblefor the determination of the validity or invalidity of the patent in apost-grant or inter partes proceeding; and determining a probabilityincludes determining a likelihood that the at least one claim of thepatent will be granted review, affirmed, or canceled by the governingoffice.
 9. The method of claim 7, wherein: assessing the validity orinvalidity of the patent includes identifying, based on the one or moreanalytical models, one or more actionable tasks that the one or moreusers can perform to increase or decrease the probability; anddisplaying the assessment includes displaying the one or more actionabletasks as one or more selectable inputs to the one or more users.
 10. Themethod of claim 9, wherein the one or more actionable tasks includes aservice, submission or filing of one or more documents selected from agroup comprising a preliminary response by a patent owner of the patent,a motion to amend at least one claim of the patent, a motion to excludeevidence, a request to change lead or backup counsel, a predeterminednumber of prior art references, a predetermined number of termsrequested for claim construction, and an observation on crossexamination.
 11. The method of claim 9, further comprising receiving aviewing selection from the one or more users, the viewing selectionassociated with a patent owner or a petitioner, wherein displaying theone or more actionable tasks includes: displaying the one or moreactionable tasks associated with the patent owner when the viewingselection associated with the patent owner is received, and displayingthe one or more actionable tasks associated with the petitioner when theviewing selection associated with the petitioner is received.
 12. Themethod of claim 6, further comprising: receiving a user input associatedwith an actionable task; determining whether the user input associatedwith the actionable task relates to the one or more developed analyticalmodels; developing a separate analytical model based on the user inputassociated with the actionable task if it is determined that the userinput associated with the actionable task is unrelated to the one ormore developed analytical models; and reassessing the validity orinvalidity of the patent based on the one or more developed analyticalmodels and the separate analytical model.
 13. The method of claim 6,wherein: applying one or more predetermined patterns includes applyingone or more predetermined patterns to identify the reference data fromeach of the plurality of legal documents; and analyzing the referencedata includes aggregating the reference data from each legal document todevelop the one or more analytical models.
 14. The method of claim 6,wherein receiving a plurality of legal documents includes receiving afirst set of legal documents, the method further comprising: receiving asecond set of legal documents; applying one or more predeterminedpatterns to the second set of legal documents to identify a second setof reference data, the one or more predetermined patterns being the sameor different than those applied to the first set of legal documents; andadjusting the one or more analytical models based on the second set ofreference data.
 15. The method of claim 6, wherein analyzing thereference data to develop one or more analytical models includes:analyzing the reference data to develop at least one of a firstanalytical model associated with an identity of a petitioner challengingthe validity of the patent, a second analytical model associated with anidentity of a patent owner of the patent, a third analytical modelassociated with a total number of claims in the patent, and a fourthanalytical model associated with an identity of one or more presidingjudges assigned to the legal proceeding associated with thedetermination of the validity or invalidity of the patent.
 16. Themethod of claim 6, further comprising: displaying a first query and asecond query through the dashboard graphical user interface on the webpage, wherein: receiving the user input over the network includesreceiving a user input selecting a first query performed or to beperformed on the plurality of legal documents; updating the analyticalmodel includes removing the analytics model including the differentanalytics parameter associated with the second query from theassessment; and displaying the updated assessment includes displayingthe updated assessment based on the updated analytics model through thedashboard graphical user interface on the web page.
 17. The method ofclaim 6, further comprising: displaying a first query and a second querythrough the dashboard graphical user interface on the web page, wherein:receiving the user input over the network includes receiving a userinput deselecting a first query performed or to be performed on theplurality of legal documents; updating the analytical model includesremoving the analytics model including the different analytics parameterassociated with the first query from the assessment; and displaying theupdated assessment includes displaying the updated assessment based onthe updated analytics model through the dashboard graphical userinterface on the web page.
 18. The method of claim 6, furthercomprising: displaying a first query and a second query through thedashboard graphical user interface on the web page, wherein: receivingthe user input over the network includes receiving a user inputselecting the first query and the second query performed or to beperformed on the plurality of legal documents; updating the analyticalmodel includes updating the analytical model including the differentanalytics parameters associated with the first query and the secondquery; and displaying the updated assessment includes displaying anaggregate assessment for both the first query and the second querythrough the dashboard graphical user interface on the web page.
 19. Adata management system comprising: one or more computer processors; adatabase storing a plurality of documents, the plurality of documentsincluding patent documents; a data mining module, executable upon theone or more computer processors, to receive the plurality of documentsand to perform data mining on the plurality of documents to identifystructured, unstructured, or semi-structured data in the plurality ofdocuments; a data analysis module, executable upon the one or morecomputer processors, configured to: receive the identified structured,unstructured, or semi-structured data from the data mining system and todevelop a predictive analytics model based on the data mining, whereinthe data analysis module is configured to perform predictive analytics,based on the predictive analytic model, on the identified structured,unstructured, or semi-structured data to determine correlations betweenattributes associated with the plurality of documents; and display oneor more queries for user selection through a dashboard graphical userinterface on a web page, each query associated with one or moreattributes associated with the plurality of documents and with anindividualized assessment, the individualized assessment beingdetermined based on the predictive analytics model; receive a user inputover a network, the user input selecting one or more queries from thedashboard graphical user interface on the web page; generate an outputbased on the one or more selected queries, the output being generatedbased on the individualized assessment associated with each query; anddisplay the output through the dashboard graphical user interface on theweb page.
 20. The data management system of claim 19, wherein: thedashboard graphical user interface includes one or more selectableinputs each corresponding to the one or more queries, the selectableinputs configured to allow selection or deselection of the one or morequeries; and the selection or deselection of the one or more queriestriggers the data analysis module to automatically update the output fordisplay on the web page through the dashboard graphical user interface.